Search Results for ‘new republic online’
In an article for the New Republic online, Jonathan Cohn points out that one possible unintended consequence of the frontloaded primary system is that it increases the likelihood of a protracted primary and would elevate the importance of late primaries like those in Oregon and West Virginia. While almost every four years, political pundits salivate at that thought of a fierce primary that would last months or even a floor fight at the convention to determine the nomination, Cohn hints at a more disturbing historic truth in his article: the primaries that he mentions as the late primaries, Oregon, West Virginia and Indiana were once the early primaries. West Virginia was where John Kennedy effectively clinched the nomination in 1960 and Indiana and Oregon were decisive battlegrounds in the 1968 primary contest between Hubert Humphrey, Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy. (The first time a Kennedy ever lost an election was when Bobby Kennedy finished second to Eugene McCarthy in Oregon.) The drift of the primary schedule has turned what were once early primaries into laggards.
We’ve expressed our concern about the frontloading of the primary process before. But this drift towards earlier primaries has the potential to end the Iowa Caucuses as we know them. The “Super-Duper Tuesday” on February 5th and Florida’s move to hold its primary on January 29 may force the Iowa Caucuses to be held, at latest, on January 7. If this trend continues, it wouldn’t be a surprise if the caucuses are held in 2007 in order to preserve their primacy. If that happens, then the Caucuses are finished. Holding a Presidential Primary or Caucus in 2007 would be so absurd that it would make wholesale reform of the Presidential nominating process inevitable. If there is top to bottom reform of the process, Iowa will not be first in the nation anymore. The interests opposed to Iowa are dramatically stronger than those that support Iowa and once the caucuses lose the advantage of stasis and institutional conservativism, the Iowa Caucuses will be not be first in the nation before. The timeline for selecting a Presidential nominee has drifted earlier and earlier every election. But this drift cannot go on indefinitely and it seems increasingly likely that it will be ended after 2008 as the possibility for root and branch reform grows greater as another Presidential primary moves up in the calendar. And it seems more likely that one of the prime candidates for root and branch reform will be the Iowa Caucuses.
The timeline for selecting a Presidential nominee has drifted earlier and earlier every election. But this drift cannot go on indefinitely, and it seems increasingly likely that it will be ended after 2008, as the possibility for root and branch reform grows greater, and as another Presidential primary moves up in the calendar. And it seems more likely that one of the prime candidates for root and branch reform will be the Iowa Caucuses.
March 25th, 2007
I have to admit something right up top: I am a reluctant subscriber to the Atlantic (Monthly). It came free as some credit card rewards program, so I get it. I’m not always proud of it, but whatever.
So when a fellow IowaProgress team member told me that I should check out the March issue for a mention of the local State House race here last year (between Democrat Eric Palmer and ousted Republican Danny Carroll), I was pleased to find it already sitting on my coffee table. Then I started reading it (online version here), and even before I finished the second sentence, I knew I wasn’t going to be happy. Here’s how writer Joshua Green begins:
A tough loss can be hard to swallow, and plenty of defeated politicians have been known to grumble about sinister conspiracies. When they are rising stars like Danny Carroll, the Republican speaker pro tempore of Iowa’s House of Representatives, and the loss is unexpected, the urge to blame unseen forces can be even stronger—and in Carroll’s case, it would have the additional distinction of being justified.
Yes, Danny Carroll was a rising star, victimized by “unseen forces” at work in House District 75. Perhaps had Carroll simply leaned on this leading consulting firm a little more, he would’ve won. But these “unseen forces” at work weren’t ghosts, ghouls, or the powerful anti-pumpkin lobby, it was something of a gay political stealth force (led by this man), out to get good little homophobes like Danny.
Yes, it is true that Eric Palmer got money from out-of-state donors, and perhaps some of them are gay. Some of them are also probably straight. Many out-of-state donors give money to one person hoping that their opponent will lose, and many of them do so on the basis of the different candidates’ political positions. Danny Carroll got money from such donors (although much of it was channeled through Christopher Rants’s PAC), as did Eric Palmer. This is not news.
It seems that even Danny himself didn’t think there was anything to this story at first. In fact, Danny probably had the right idea before the reporter tried to change his interview subject’s mind mid-interview. This paragraph is the kicker:
Carroll was just sitting down to dinner but agreed to talk about his loss, which he attributed to the activism of Grinnell College students. A suggestion that he’d been targeted by a nationwide network of wealthy gay activists was met with polite midwestern skepticism.
Yup, that’s right: Danny’s pretty sure it was us. We’re pretty sure it was us. And the number of college students who voted for Eric Palmer is remarkably close to the number of votes Danny lost by. But Joshua Green still blames the gays. Green convinces Danny to look at the IECDB reports from the 2006 race, and here’s where things go from there:
Scrolling through the thirty-two-page roster of campaign contributors revealed plenty of $25 and $50 donations from nearby towns like Oskaloosa and New Sharon. But a $1,000 donation from California stood out on page 2, and, several pages later, so did another $1,000 from New York City. “I’ll be darned,” said Carroll. “That doesn’t make any sense.” As we kept scrolling, Carroll began reading aloud with mounting disbelief as the evidence passed before his eyes. “Denver … Dallas … Los Angeles … Malibu … there’s New York again … San Francisco! I can’t—I just cannot believe this,” he said, finally. “Who is this guy again?”
Eric Palmer got $1,000 from New York?!?!?! And more donations from Dallas and Denver?!?!?! Shucks! I guess that means Eric won because of the gay agenda then.
Seriously, though, how is this puff piece journalism? People with certain interests donate to political campaigns across the country all the time, on both sides. Not everyone knows why every donor donates, and in many cases the candidates don’t even know what a donor’s agenda might be. It isn’t like Eric had a huge resource advantage over Danny, either. It may be sensational because a few of Palmer’s donors were gay, but it is certainly nothing new.
If this was our 15 minutes of national media fame, I’m going to be very disappointed.
February 13th, 2007
In the midst of the stupidity over bloggers and the stupidity over his house, it’s worth noting that John Edwards presented a pretty significant and detailed heath care plan last week. The plan, which was analyzed in detail by Jonathan Cohn at the New Republic, provides universal health care but does so through the use of tax credits to create and fund entities for groups of peopuyle to purchase insurance called “health markets” as well as through an “individual mandate” which is a requirement that everyone b insured. It also allows Medicare to compete with private insurers to provide coverage to people through health markets. It is a complex plan that would be funded by rolling back the Bush tax cuts. Although it has the advantage of “giving people who have insurance something they lack now–more security and more choice–without taking away their coverage,” the complexity this engenders makes it difficult to sell. As Cohn notes “grafting universal coverage onto an already complicated system inevitably means drawing up a complicated plan. That’s not particularly helpful in the current media environment.”
The alternative is a straightforward single payer system like that in a bill before Congress, HR 676, that was introduced by John Conyers (and co-sponsored by Dave Loebsack.) This is the system used in the rest of the western world, which leads to significantly lower health care costs than what we have. A single payer plan would be much more effective but is considered less politically feasible. As a result, it is doubtful that any other serious candidate will advocate for it (as opposed to hopeless publicity seekers). However, it is still possible. The national debate on health care is moving increasingly towards a single payer solution. Edwards, by introducing his plan, laid down his marker but, as the debate develops, other candidates who either seek to flank him on the left or merely keep up with the national debate may introduce single payer plans similar to HR 676. In meantime, we will just have to wait and see what their policy teams cook up.
Barack Obama pledged in his annoucement yesterday that “we will have universal health care in America by the end of the next president’s first term.” However, he hasn’t unveiled his plan yet. In the meantime, John Edwards has been the first candidate to unveil a detailed health care plan. It may not be perfect but it is definitely worthy of respect.
February 11th, 2007
As Barack Obama’s announcing his Presidential candidacy today in front of huge crowds. We thought it was worth revisiting some of our past coverage of Senator Obama’s candidacy as well this handy Obama primer from today’s Guardian that does an excellent job of offering a brief introduction to the man and the phenomenon that he has spawned.
The other noteworthy political news today is that Mitt Romney has adopted a new campaign strategy that should prove very successful. It is to feed Republican activists free steak. Even if Romney’s supporters aren’t the most fervent of any candidate, they will certainly be the best fed.
February 10th, 2007
Mark Warner’s PAC, Forward Together, is holding an online vote to determine which Iowa legislature candidates it will give $5000 (House) or $6500 (Senate). It’s a great perk that presidential hopefuls do this sort of thing in Iowa, since that amount of money really makes a huge difference in a state race.
Please cast your vote for Eric Palmer now.
Eric Palmer is challenging extremist conservative Danny Carroll, who he came painfully close to unseating in ‘04. Carroll has had the benefit of visits from conservative fundraising powerhouses John “I’m a panderer not a uniter” McCain, Sam “I hate evolution” Brownback, Haley “I hate Jews and Blacks” Barbour, and Newt “My conservatism doesn’t need explaining” Gingrich. He’s also received a ton of money from convicted felon Thomas Grabinski.
Just to remind you a little more why Eric Palmer deserves your vote (as if you haven’t heard our spiel before), Carroll is also known for his attempts to suppress Grinnell College students’ votes and his outlandish ideas about gay marriage.
Please take a moment to make Mark Warner give Eric some dollas.
September 19th, 2006
In the second part of our three-part series, Jesse Harris, Field Director for Chet Culver’s campaign, took the time to answer our questions. Here’s what he had to say:
IowaProgress: How did you get involved in politics?
Jesse Harris: In the fall of 1999, I entered Simpson College just as Bill Bradley and Al Gore began to actively campaign in Iowa for the precinct caucuses. That campaign brought me into the political process and my interest in campaigns and public service hasn’t diminished. While in college I volunteered for the Bradley for President Campaign and then completed a summer internship in Congressman Leonard Boswell’s office in Washington, D.C. Although I had planned to attend graduate school, the prospect of working on a presidential campaign in 2003 and 2004 was too great to pass up. I was offered a position with the Edwards for President Campaign in Des Moines. For seven months I worked as a field organizer in Warren, Lucas, Clarke, Wayne and Decatur Counties. Following the caucus I continued to work for the campaign in Madison, Wisconsin and Minneapolis, Minnesota. That experience led me to continue working for Democratic candidates in Iowa.
IP: What do you do in off years when there aren’t elections? (Or what did you do before you joined this campaign?)
JH: In Iowa the campaign season really never ends. Just as one campaign passes there are new ones forming. Over the past three years I have worked for three different campaigns; the Edwards Campaign, the Iowa Democratic Party Coordinated Campaign and now the Culver for Governor Campaign. Since I graduated from Simpson, I have only spent five months outside of campaign work. In that time I served as a legislative assistant to State Senator Tom Rielly (D-Oskaloosa).
IP: In this gubernatorial election, the candidates are using the internet a lot more than they did last time around. What role do you think the internet (both your campaign sites and online news outlets and blogs) will play in this election? In what ways has the internet changed Iowa political campaigning?
JH: Without question, the internet has had deep and even profound effects on political campaigns. In some circles, the internet has even become the primary method that voters acquire information about elections and the issues at play in campaigns. While races used to be confined largely to local markets, today people throughout the country are able to acquire information on races from city hall to the White House. It has become a useful tool to update voters on the campaign, distribute information about policy positions and to raise money from a broader network of individuals.
Blogs have, in many respects, democratized journalism. Today, campaigns distribute information through a much wider universe of writers representing a number of different mediums. Blogs also reach more targeted communities of potential voters, particularly young people.
IP: What role do you think students (should) play in Iowa politics?
JH: Iowa and its residents have a significant voice in the American political process, more significant than virtually anywhere else in the country. This is true of students in Iowa as well. Nowhere else in the United States, excluding New Hampshire, will presidential candidates regularly visit college campuses and meet with students directly. With three universities, a large network of private liberal arts colleges and the state’s many community colleges, students in Iowa are positioned well to shape the public debate and push issues of concern to the forefront.
Of course, this applies to the governor’s race as well. Chet Culver will fight for Iowa’s young people. As governor, Chet will work to create good jobs with good benefits in every corner of the state so that college graduates will have every opportunity to live, work and raise their families in Iowa. As a former teacher Chet has worked tirelessly to increase participation among young people in Iowa and as a result participation among 18-24 year olds has increased dramatically.
IP: Iowa has a mix of urban voters and rural voters. Is it difficult to account for both groups in crafting your message?
JH: I believe that there is more that unites Iowans than divides them. In fact, Iowa’s mixture of urban and rural residents is one of the primary strengths of our state. In the end, all Iowans, whether they are rural or urban voters, Republican or Democrats, want high quality schools, affordable and accessible health care, and a strong, vibrant economy. Chet has proposed the most comprehensive campaign plan of any candidate running for governor. Chet’s “Leading Iowa Forward” will show voters specifically what he intends to do as governor. Specifically, he has released a comprehensive health care plan and an alternative energy plan both of which will benefit all Iowans in every corner of the state.
IP: (Campaign-specific question) How involved were you in choosing Patty Judge as running-mate? How do you respond to criticism that the choice was made for political reasons?
JH: In the end, the most important criteria for selecting a running mate is 1) Is this person qualified to become governor of the state of Iowa and 2) In maintaining a strong, vibrant Democratic Party, will this person stand up for Democrats and our Democratic values. In Patty Judge, Chet selected someone who not only meets this standard but far exceeds it. Secretary Judge has an extensive and distinguished record of public service. As a registered nurse she understands the challenges facing our health care system particularly women’s health care. As a two-term state senator, Patty developed policy on a wide range of issues and in doing so was elected to the Senate Democratic leadership. As Secretary of Agriculture for the past eight years, Patty has served at the highest levels of the executive branch and oversees one of the largest state agencies. She would be ready from the first minute to assume the duties of the governor’s office. Throughout her life, Patty has consistently supported and worked for Democratic candidates throughout Iowa. There is never any question about her commitment to the Democratic Party here in Iowa. Knowing that Patty Judge is ready to become governor and that she will fight for our Democratic principles, the choice was easy.
IP: Why is your campaign the best suited to beat Nussle?
JH: Chet Culver is the candidate best positioned to beat Jim Nussle this fall. Between Chet and Patty, this ticket has won four statewide elections and a total of 70 of the state’s 99 counties. Chet won his reelection by over 100,000 votes. Chet Culver and Patty Judge have proven that they can compete with Republicans in every corner of Iowa.
Moreover, Chet Culver is the only Democratic candidate currently beating Jim Nussle in the polls. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, Chet beats Nussle 40% to 38%. In a KCCI poll, Chet outdistances Nussle 44% to 43%. Nussle beats all of the other Democratic candidates and by significant margins.
Finally, he is the only Democrat running for governor who has demonstrated the capacity to keep pace with Jim Nussle on fundraising. In 2005, Chet raised more money than all the other Democrats seeking the nomination combined. The 2006 governor’s race will be the most expensive in Iowa history and we need a candidate that can match the Republicans.
April 29th, 2006
