Search Results for ‘party line vote’
Despite being a city slicker from Sherman Hill, Ed Fallon displayed his agricultural expertise last week when he reaped what he sowed with Al Gore’s endorsement of Leonard Boswell. To paraphrase what Fallon said about the former Vice President, Gore can’t support Fallon, won’t support Fallon and thinks Democratic primary voters in the 3rd District shouldn’t support Fallon either. Fallon notoriously betrayed the Democratic Party and stabbed Gore in the back and is now facing the consequences of his actions. This endorsement came the same day as a KCCI poll came out that showed Boswell thumping Fallon by nearly 25 points. Even if every undecided voter broke for Fallon, Boswell would still win 52-48. In addition, national publications such as the Hotline and Real Clear Politics are counting Fallon out.
Iowa named a county after Nathaniel Greene, a Revolutionary War General who presided over the trial and execution of John Andre, Benedict Arnold’s accomplice. It’s doubtful though whether the state will grant any such honor to Leonard Boswell when he presides over the death knell of a modern day Benedict Arnold’s political career on June 3rd but Boswell will be deserving of it.
April 28th, 2008
Ed Fallon today attacked a bill that would ban politicians paying themselves with campaign funds as “status quo politics at its worst.” The bill was introduced because Fallon had paid himself nearly $14,000 with campaign funds after the end of his 2006 gubernatorial bid, making Fallon one of the most notable politicians to line his own pockets with campaign funds since Alan Keyes paid himself $8500 a month to run for Senate in 1992. Although Fallon claimed there was leftover money in his campaign account because “most candidates aren’t as fiscally responsible as I am,” Fallon had nearly $40,000 still in the bank at the end of his gubernatorial campaign. In a close three-race where you being outspent, saving that much money isn’t exactly fiscally responsible.
But then again, Fallon was considering running through November even if he didn’t win the primary. Although Fallon denied contemplating a third party run for Governor, an email from his campaign manager/business partner/very close personal friend Lynn Heuss to the Iowa Campaign and Ethics Board stated that the reason that Fallon was paying himself after the Democratic Primary and had kept his campaign account open was because “there was also the possibility that he would decide to run as a 3rd party candidate” in addition to the need to perform administrative tasks. One wonders how such a miscommunication could occur between two people who are so close.
Although perhaps it wasn’t a miscommunication. Fallon already backed Ralph Nader in 2000 stating at a rally the week before an election “I can’t, I won’t and you shouldn’t vote for Al Gore” and later condemned the Polk County Democratic Central Committee for asking all Democratic candidates to support the Democratic ticket no matter. Although Fallon later said he only endorsed Nader when Al Gore added Joe Lieberman to the ticket, his published remarks on the subject don’t address Lieberman at all and seem more focused on attacking the Vice President and future Nobel Laureate as “to the right of Bill Clinton.” As a result of the loyalty pledge, Fallon compared the actions of the Polk County Democratic Central Committee to the Nazi Party in a hyperbolic statement of utter tastelessness.
In fact, it seems more likely that Ed Fallon is lying again. Fallon has already spent the week obfuscating about the financial irregularities of his “business” I’m For Iowa. He told one reporter that he only took a small draw from the business and another that he was paying himself a salary of over $30,000 a year. However, Ed Fallon has been consistent about one thing. He refuses to disclose the financial records of I’M for Iowa, reinforcing the fact that there is something rotten in Sherman Hill.
But in the meantime, Fallon, the erstwhile crusader for campaign finance reform, is attacking a bill prohibiting candidates from paying themselves as “status quo politics at its worst” and hiding the financial records of I’M For Iowa from public disclosure. For someone who claims to believe in clean elections, Ed Fallon certainly seems to be running his in the muck.
March 31st, 2008
Iowans for Tax Relief recently announced that it was backing a primary candidate against incumbent Republican Clarence Hoffman in the Republican primary in State House District 55 (Ida County and parts of Crawford, Monona and Woodbury County). Hoffman is a fifth term Representative who crossed party lines to support the bill banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.
This is the second time Iowans for Tax Relief has backed a primary candidate against an incumbent Republican so far for the 2008 cycle. The first State Representative that they tried to primary, Walt Tomenga in House District 69 (Johnston and Grimes) has since announced his retirement. This has set up a vicious primary between ITR’s preferred candidate, Erik Helland, and former Iowa basketball player Al Lorenzen who is backed by moderate Republicans like former Governor Robert Ray.
However, while Iowans for Tax Relief is trying to find candidates who represent the true conservative nature of these districts, they’re neglecting that these are actually relatively moderate districts. Neither of these districts are Republican strongholds. In fact, Chet Culver received over 45% of the vote in both districts in 2006. Under normal circumstances, these seats would probably not be top Democratic priorities to pick up seats in the State House. But Iowans for Tax Relief drastically changes that.
With Iowans for Tax Relief’s continued effort to purge the Republican Party of anyone who slightly deviates from its extremist agenda, it’s safe to say that regardless of what happens on the day of the Primary Election, a lot of Republicans will be unhappy. This is especially true if Iowans for Tax Relief’s anointed candidate wins. An win by either or both Helland and Schultz would continue the trend of moderate Republicans like Robert Ray and Maggie Tinsman being isolated in their party and allow a great opportunity for a moderate Democratic candidate to appeal to these disenchanted Republicans and have a good chance at winning what would normally be a safe Republican seat.
Iowans for Tax Relief is certainly doing a good job of making the Republican Party more conservative. But at a terrible cost to any attempt by Republicans to build a majority. For a group that so admires Ronald Reagan, one would think that they would expand their reading in scriptures to include Reagan’s 11th commandment. Instead, they seem more concerned with obscure passages in Leviticus. Passages that Iowa Republicans will have many more years to study while they are in the minority.
October 15th, 2007
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
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
A few days ago, The Register wrote an article documenting State Representative Dawn Pettengill’s dissatisfaction with the Democratic leadership in the State House. Here’s a snippet:
“I’m just trying to get through this term as a Democrat,” said Pettengill, the former mayor of her hometown of Mount Auburn who is now in her third year in the Iowa House. “People elected me as a Democrat, and I would not change during a term, that’s for sure.”
Her indecision leaves Democratic leaders questioning whether they should recruit a replacement candidate for the 2008 primary, and Republican leaders wondering if she might be on their team by the general election.
Will she defect? Well, she says she won’t during this term. In general, though, I’m not too worried about it. Pettengill has always seemed concerned with her ability to get elected in a district that she perceives as leaning more Republican than Democrat. She has developed a reputation (partly, but not wholly, deserved) for being emotionally volatile. Although she has condemned other legislators’ pet projects and voted against them, she is somewhat famous for her own pet projects: last year, she sponsored legislation to ban stores from selling sex toys to minors, and this year, she was the main proponent of the bill that recently passed preventing Iowa from having any business dealings with businesses supporting the genocide in Darfur. (I don’t mean to claim that either of these bills is bad policy, but neither is exactly in the front of most Iowans’ minds.)
The Register notes a few key places where Pettengill differs from the Democratic leadership in the House, but none of them are cut and dry reasons for a defection to the Republicans (or even to the Independent ticket):
But the strain of the last month has taken a serious toll as she struggled with her dislike of bills dear to many Democrats — raising the minimum wage (she voted yes after some reluctance), upping the cigarette tax (she voted no), campaign finance reform (she may vote no), and allowing public employee unions to charge nonunion members a “fair share” fee (she firmly intends to vote no).
On raising the minimum wage, she did end up voting yes, and the political realities in her district meant that “some reluctance” on the vote was smart. On voting against the cigarette tax, she justifies her decision for liberal (dare I say Democratic) reasons:
During a caucus meeting on the cigarette tax two weeks ago, Pettengill wept as she explained that when she was 19 years old, she found herself living on her own with a baby, balancing college classes and a job. She couldn’t afford cigarettes, but they were such a critical source of comfort that she sacrificed food to buy them.
She objects to a cigarette tax because it is increcibly regressive — it takes money disproportionately from the poor, and, because it is a flat fee, it takes a greater percentage of the disposable income of a poor person than it does a rich person. Yes, it internalizes an externality, yadda yadda yadda; but there is a principled, liberal argument to be made against it. Frankly, I was surprised more members didn’t express that opinion. Maybe only a small minority of the party holds this view, but it isn’t because they are the more conservative members of the party.
On campaign finance reform, it really isn’t clear that all of the Democratic leadership are fully supporting the VOICE bill. Good liberals generally like it (despite the short-term strategic disadvantages it may present to parties currently in the majority of the legislature), but this isn’t exactly an issue that everyone is closely aligned over.
And finally, on FairShare, it disappoints many labor activists that Pettengill does not support it, but again, there is a fair amount of diversity among Democrats on this subject. Some have more union shops in their districts than others, and some have different opinions of labor unions than others. Our Democratic State Senator, Tom Reilly, voted against FairShare, and he isn’t leaving the party anytime soon. Again, it’s an issue where some people within the labor movement are doubting policies like this, so it isn’t’ only conservatives who oppose it.
So is it really just the House leadership’s fault that Pettengill is disgruntled, as others have claimed? No. The House leadership is doing its job. Their job is to push a Democratic agenda in the legislature, and they have to keep their members in line whenever they can. They’re getting results, and, unless Pettengill does end up defecting, no one will even remember this story in six months.
March 31st, 2007
John Deeth linked to the National Journal’s ranking of all the members of Congress from most liberal to least liberal. What’s interesting is that, despite the big Democratic year in 2006, Iowa’s most liberal congressman got defeated. That title was held by Republican Jim Leach. Leach was one of the last of the liberal Republicans but lost to the much more liberal Dave Loebsack. Although Leach was a liberal Republican, he voted for the Republican leadership and was one of the worst of the Clinton haters in Congress in the mid 1990s (although he probably wasn’t sincere about his Clinton-hating. Instead, he was just unsuccessfully angling for the 1996 Republican nomination for U.S. Senate against Tom Harkin).
But the fact that Leach was the most liberal Congressman from Iowa means that Democrat Leonard Boswell wasn’t. Boswell was only a mere four places behind Leach (although that made him less liberal than one other Republican, Libertarian Ron Paul.) This put Boswell in a three way tie for the 173rd most liberal member of Congress with Artur Davis of Alabama and liberal sweetheart John Murtha. This emphasizes Boswell’s vulnerable position. He represents a swing district, albeit one where the base Democratic voters are relatively liberal (as opposed to many of Boswell’s fellow Blue Dogs from the South). Boswell has to walk a fine line to protect himself from a primary challenge and to retain his appeal in the district in a general election as much of the rural 3rd District is proving increasingly invulnerable to his charms as a rural Democrat from Decatur County. Boswell has walked this tightrope well in the past but as questions about his health and age continue to build, it will become increasingly likely that he will either slip or be pushed.
Finally, it’s worth noting one bit of trivia. The most conservative congressman from Iowa is not Steve King but rather Tom Latham. While King may be nuts, he at least is an independent thinker. Latham accumulated a more conservative record by being a straight party-line, pro-corporate Republican hack. It allows Latham the benefit of a seat on the Appropriations Committee for the small cost of independent thought and free will. One hopes that Selden Spencer will use this information to his advantage for his second bid for the 4th District.
March 4th, 2007
The Politico has this profile of the head of the far right Iowa Christian Alliance, Steve Scheffler. Scheffler has become a major player in Iowa Republican politics over the past six years as the far right has reasserted its dominance over the Republican Party of Iowa as Democratic majorities in both houses of the state legislature, Iowa congressional delegation and our control of the Governorship attest to. Scheffler brags in the article that three quarters of the Republicans who show up to caucus “will be down the line on life, immigration, marriage and spending.” Aside from that fact that these aren’t all typical social conservative hot-button issues, it gets to the question of what the actual composition of the caucus crowd will be.
Every candidate tries to draw out special niches that they think that they will get a lot of support from. In 2004, as Roger Simon’s classic piece about the caucuses noted “Dick Gephardt targeted family farmers; Howard Dean went after the young and disenchanted; [John] Kerry pursued veterans.” With both parties holding highly competitive caucuses, there will be a lot of competition for both groups. It’s fair to say though that we can tell some of the core demographics that candidates will go after in 2008. McCain will go after veterans (and Giuliani may too), Romney will go after fellow Mormons (there aren’t a lot in Iowa but enough to make a difference), Huckabee and Brownback after fellow evangelicals (perhaps special denominational focuses after Protestants and Catholics respectively). All the candidates will go after people in all of these communities but there are some communities where they have a more significant appeal. So why does this matter? Because every person who goes to the Republican caucuses is someone who cannot go to the Democratic ones. In 2004, the fight for the Republican nomination was not competitive. This meant that only diehard Republicans attended the caucuses. In 2008, both parties will feature highly competitive primary battles. That means there will be big advantages for candidates whose niche voters are also their party’s base voters. Of all the candidates mentioned, this has big ramifications for John McCain, his special appeal is with veterans and he will probably try to emulate John Kerry’s strategy of wooing veterans in 2004. Kerry was able to attract quite a few veterans who were Independents and Republicans to come caucus for him in 2004. The problem for McCain is, many Democratic veterans will be participating in the Democratic caucuses. Another problem is that all the Republican veterans who showed up to support John Kerry will getting harassed by Democratic candidates as well, since they showed up to a previous Democratic caucus. This means that they’ll be getting a ton of phone calls from Democrats, which will drown out any attempt by McCain to reach out to them. This puts McCain at a disadvantage and it makes more likely that a right winger will triumph in Iowa on caucus night.
March 1st, 2007
Now that we’ve done overviews of the most vulnerable Democratic seats in the State Senate and our best pickup opportunities in 2008, it’s time to move on to the State House. Democrats picked up five seats in the Iowa House in 2007 to gain a 54-46 majority. The Republicans will be gearing up for 2008 determined to take back the majority under their leader, Chris Rants. But the Democrats have quite a few opportunities to pick up seats too. Here are our five best chances to gain seats:
1. Tami Wiencek (Waterloo) This is the only seat the Republicans picked up in 2006 and one they never should have picked up in the first place. 2006 was a Democratic year and Black Hawk County was no exception: Chet Culver won there with 58% of the vote, which was 3 points better than John Kerry in 2004 and 4 points better than Tom Vilsack in 2002. However, the Republicans managed to pick up a Democratic seat in Waterloo that a Democratic incumbent had won comfortably with over 60% of the vote in 2002 and 2004. What happened? The Democratic incumbent, Don Shoultz, got complacent and Wiencek ran a strong campaign and beat him by 300 votes. Wiencek benefited from being a well-liked local television anchor whereas Shoultz, a 24-year incumbent, was not exactly Waterloo’s most beloved citizen. This is a seat in a strongly Democratic area with a big Democratic registration advantage. It should be a Democratic seat. As a result, Wiencek is very vulnerable in 2008 and will have a tough time holding on to all the crossover voters who elected her in in 2006 with Shoultz off the ballot and with the Presidency up for grabs. Although she’s presenting herself as a moderate, it’s tough to imagine Bill Dotzler being represented by a Republican State Representative at all, let alone for more than one term.
2. Chuck Gipp (Allamakee and part of Winneshiek County) Over half the registered voters in Oklahoma are Democrats, however the state hasn’t voted for a Democratic candidate for President since 1964. Gipp’s district in the northeast corner of the state is Iowa’s version of Oklahoma. Although its voters may disproprtionately registered Republicans, many of them have been reliably voting Democrat for years. The district is heavily Republican in party registration (3,000 more Republicans than Democrats) and Gipp won with 59% of the vote in 2006. However, those party registration numbers hide that his district is actually much more Democratic than it looks. John Kerry actually won the district by a handful of votes in 2004. Winneshiek County was one of three counties in the state (along with Jasper and Poweshiek) that Gore lost and Kerry won, and Kerry improved on Al Gore’s performance in Allamakee County by nearly 5 percentage points. Gipp is retiring at the end of this term. Although he was able to maintain a strong hold on the seat as a popular incumbent, any Republican candidate in 2008 will have a much more difficult time. Allamakee County, which makes up half the district, was once reliably Republican. Bill Clinton barely won it in 1996, Chet Culver won it by 10 points in 2006. This changing political trends will make it a tough seat for the Republicans to hold on to without an incumbent running.
3. Dan Rasmussen (Buchanan and parts of Black Hawk and Fayette) Rasmussen is a three term incumbent from a strongly Democratic district. Despite receiving only 30% of the vote when he first ran for the State House as a sacrificial lamb, Rasmussen has quickly entrenched himself as a popular incumbent in Buchanan County. While Chet Culver romped home in the district, winning Buchanan County with 58% of the vote, Rasmussen managed to pull out a lead of 800 votes in the county over his Democratic opponent, Pete McRoberts. The district has a strong Democratic registration advantage and is the most Democratic state house district in the state with a Republican incumbent. John Kerry won the district with 54% of the vote in 2004. Rasmussen’s popularity spooked the Iowa Democratic Party in 2006 and support was pulled away from Pete McRoberts to other candidates who they saw as more promising. However, despite that, McRoberts still received 48% of the vote. Despite Rasmussen having the advantage of incumbency, this is a seat where the demographics just aren’t in his favor. If a Democratic candidate receives the necessary support in even a neutral year, this seat should be a Democratic pickup.
4. David Deyoe (Story County outside of Ames and part of Hamilton County) Deyoe’s district experienced two of the most competitive state legislative races in the state in 2006, both Deyoe’s 800 vote victory over Susan Radke and the hardfought slugfest between Democrat Rich Olive and Republican Jim Kurtenbach for State Senate that Olive won by 62 votes. However, while Radke lost, Chet Culver pulled out a narrow victory in the district. The big difference between Radke and Culver was their relative performance in the Democratic town of Nevada. Although both Deyoe and Radke were from Nevada, Deyoe was much more well liked. As a result, Deyoe received 55% in Nevada, almost the same percentage that Culver received. The district does have a strong Republican edge in voter registration but that’s connected with the traditional Republicanism of Story County. The district is definitely a swing district. If the Democrats field a strong candidate who could run with the rest of the ticket in Nevada, this is definitely a winnable district in 2008.
5. Doug Struyk (Council Bluffs) Struyk’s seat was won by a Democrat in 2002. Unfortunately, that Democrat was named Doug Struyk. Struyk defected in 2004 right at the filing deadline. The seat has always been relatively close and in 2006, Struyk won with only 53% against a nontargeted candidate who raised a mere $1400 in a nearly four month period leading up to the election. It’s a district that will be getting a lot more attention in 2008 as its State Senator is Mike Gronstal, who is arguably the most powerful man in the state right now. Gronstal will devote as many resources as possible to turning out a lot of Democratic voters in his district and that will help any candidate running against Struyk. Struyk himself is evidence that the district can elect Democrats and when someone endorsed John Kerry in 2004 and Mitt Romney in 2008, it’s fair to say that Struyk, like the candidates he supports, can be attacked as a flip flopper too. This will be an uphill race, but if enough resources are devoted to the seat, Struyk can and should be beat. The Democratic Party should have a zero tolerance policy for Benedict Arnolds and there’s no better place in Iowa to implement this policy than by beating Doug Struyk.
Other vulnerable seats held by Iowa House Republicans include (in alphabetical order): Betty DeBoef (Keokuk County, most of Iowa County and parts of Poweshiek and Tama), Polly Granzow (Hardin County and part of Marshall) Sandy Greiner (Washington County and parts of Jefferson and Johnson), Kraig Paulsen (Cedar Rapids), Thomas Sands (Louisa County and parts of Des Moines and Muscatine) and Bill Schickel (Mason City).
February 26th, 2007
There has been some speculation about the connection between Tom Vilsack and Hillary Clinton. Perhaps some of the ’sack staff will move to the Clinton camp, and that would be a huge boost to Clinton if it happened. But while the staff might go to Clinton, it is way too early to assume that Vilsack’s supporters will automatically flow that direction, too. So the question remains: who will fill the Vilsack vacuum here? Who gains the most politically from the drop-out?
That’s a question that requires two answers, because, here in Iowa, we have gotten to know two different sides of Tom Vilsack. The first Tom Vilsack is the conservative DLC Democrat who was our governor for eight years. He was well-liked by moderates because of his political positions, and he was well-liked by many progressives because he was able to win. It is safe to say that the majority of Vilsack’s caucus support over the past few months has come from folks who got to know Vilsack as a moderate, and these folks are going to be looking for another moderate, probably with some executive experience.
The second Tom Vilsack is the McGovern-esque presidential candidate he had started to become over the past few months. He ran far to the left on the Iraq war, calling for immediate withdrawal and a cutoff of all funding in Congress, and he fashioned himself an expert on environmental issues in general (and renewable energy in particular). He was getting some traction on AirAmerica Radio and on certain liberal blogs (although clearly that wasn’t enough) and using “Courage to Create Change” as his tagline. In many ways, his campaign might have hoped to be 2008’s Howard Dean, another candidate who had a somewhat moderate record as a governor but who broke out as the antiwar left’s poster candidate during his campaign. (Vilsack was even using Blue State Digital, the team that handled Dean’s online strategy 2003-2004, for his web stuff.)
So these are two different voids. In Iowa, though, it is the moderate Vilsack who attracted most of the supporters. So the question is, which candidate matches up the best?
Ironically, Evan Bayh and Mark Warner would probably have gained the most. Unfortunately for them, they both dropped out months ago, perhaps because Vilsack was sucking up all of the moderate governor oxygen. (Yeah, in Bayh’s case, he has Senatorial experience, too, but it was his experience as Indiana Governor that he seemed to be emphasizing to distinguish himself.)
Without Bayh and Warner, it seems that the most likely to gain will be Bill Richardson, but he doesn’t draw as many obvious comparisons to Vilsack as Bayh and Warner would have. If Richardson doesn’t have an excellent Iowa field campaign soon, he will lose whatever advantage he might have gained, because folks who were comfortable settling on Vilsack this early could be looking for another candidate to settle on soon. He has a strong Iowa field director already, but that won’t be enough. Maybe this will encourage him to buy access to the state party’s VAN (the super-high-tech voter file), which is the mark of any serious Iowa Caucus campaign.
Either way, all of the non-”rock star” candidates must be breathing a sigh of relief today. Tomorrow, we’ll find out which one is “rock solid” enough to fill Vilsack’s two pairs of shoes.
February 23rd, 2007
Previous Posts
