In an interview the other day, Ed Fallon stated “if coal interests want to research clean coal technology and carbon sequestration they, not the tax-payers, should fund the research.” This is a noble statement based on a belief in renewable energy and a green future. Unfortunately it’s not based on reality. The most ambitious goal for renewable energy involves Americans getting 20% from our energy from renewable sources in the next 20 years. So where do we get the remaining 80% of our energy? While natural gas is relatively clean, it is a commodity that cannot be transported across oceans. The U.S. currently gets about 25% of its energy from natural gas. This leaves 55% of our energy to be accounted for and three possibilities, coal, oil and nuclear energy. Fallon has expressed his opposition to coal and also is vehemently against nuclear energy, stating that “When all costs are factored in, nuclear power is the most expensive source of energy. More nuclear power plants mean more plutonium, and reactor-grade plutonium can be used to make a nuclear weapon. And there is no real solution to the problem of storing nuclear wastes.” So that leaves one source of energy acceptable to Ed Fallon to supply over half of America’s energy needs, imported foreign oil.
Relying on foreign oil is bad for the environment, bad for consumers already paying high gas prices and bad for the United States as a whole, as it forces our economy to continue to rely on oil imported from the Middle East. Fallon’s opposition to coal seems to be demagoguery, designed to play on the fears of environmentalists opposed to the Marshalltown coal plant, rather than real environmental policy. While no one can argue that coal is the best source of energy for the United States, unfortunately, compared to oil or nuclear, it is probably the least bad of the three. But with increased funding and emphasis on clean coal research, coal will become much more environmentally friendly. In fact, clean coal is a central part of Barack Obama’s energy plan.
Unlike oil, coal doesn’t have to be imported from Middle Eastern nations and unlike nuclear power, it doesn’t produce radioactive waste that will last for tens of thousands of years. In contrast, the United States has a plentiful supply of coal. In fact, Iowa’s third district is sitting on significant coal deposits and towns like Melcher-Dallas and Lucas used to be coal mining centers.
A lot of work and research still needs to be done to make clean coal a reality. Ed Fallon seems to think that this work should be left to private businesses, not the government. While this free market attitude is nice in theory, it is not based in reality. Without government funding over the past few decades, the United States has lagged far behind in research in solar energy and wind energy. Stripping government funding for clean coal research would be just as disastrous. In the meantime, Fallon would rather have us import oil instead. With an energy policy based on reliance on free markets and importing foreign oil, Fallon seems to want to continue the George Bush-Dick Cheney energy plan. Such a misguided attitude would be disastrous for our country and disastrous for our planet.
In an interview with a progressive blog today, Ed Fallon claimed, “We’re doing really well, our own internal polling shows us up.” It’s not a surprise for Fallon to make a claim when the Boswell campaign released its own internal from Anzalone Lizst, the firm that polled for new Democratic Congressmen Don Cazayoux and Travis Childers, that had Boswell receiving 65% of the vote.
This jibes with the KCCI poll that had Boswell winning by a two to one margin. However, Fallon’s campaign finance reports, which show him having only $28,000 on hand the day before he had to meet payroll, does not show him spending any money on pollsters. (Nor does it show him spending on money on television, radio, mail, newspaper advertisements or any other form of paid media) So if Ed Fallon hasn’t hired a pollster and can’t afford to pay one, why does he claim he has internal polling, let alone internal polling that seems at odds with all the other information about this race?
Our guess is that Ed Fallon probably took a survey, not a poll. A survey is unscientific and involves asking a bunch of people without dealing with complicated things like sample size or filtering likely voters. This means that Ed Fallon may actually be ahead according to his “polling”, provided, of course, that a third of the electorate are vegetarians from Sherman Hill and everyone who votes outside Polk County is a member of CCI. Then again, this blog may be given Fallon too much credit for assuming that he merely mistook the difference between a survey and a poll. (Which is covered the second week of Statistics 101).
Fallon has a history of lying and of sleazy behavior. He may have just made up his “internal polling” entirely, which would be a good deal for Fallon. After all, the less he spends on internal polling, the more money he can pay himself.
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.
I’ve written before about Rudy’s penchant for bullying and his contempt for civil liberty. And New Yorkers have long known that Rudy is, well, abrasive.
Here’s a favorite moment of mine from the Mayor’s radio show:
Gravel-voiced Joe from Dutchess County asked in 1999 why the mayor did not attack President Clinton at a fund-raising dinner. When the program returned after a commercial break it sounded as if Joe still was on the line. It was the mayor, imitating Joe’s dese-dem-dere voice.
”This is, uh, Joe from, ahhh, Dutchess County. I unnerstan’ youse went too easy the other night because people applauded or they didn’t applaud for ya or sumthin’–I don’t remember.” Mr. Giuliani giggled. Then he speculated that maybe Joe was a long-term resident of a state prison.
”I think you should go back to making license plates, Joe.”
But Rudy’s contempt for the public is endearing when compared to his pugnacious plans for our country’s foreign policy. The team America’s Mayor has assembled to advise him on foreign affairs is downright frightening. Take a look at this TPMtv segment on Rudy’s minions. It looks like if Rudy becomes the President, he’s going to treat the rest of the world like a bunch of ferrets:
Via Jonathan Martin, we see Mitt Romney “unplugged” in an interview with Iowa’s top conservative radio talk show host, Jan Mickelson. Romney, whose plastic smile never seems to fade, pretty much loses it in an argument with Mickelson over his Mormon faith. The disagreement becomes most pointed during commercials, as in, when they were off the air. But Mickelson’s show was also videotaping the whole thing, so we can see what Romney looks like when (he thinks) the cameras aren’t rolling. They go off the air about 10 minutes in.
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.
If Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post can already start looking at 2008 US Senate races, we feel like it’s not too soon to start looking at 2008 Iowa Senate races. Today, we’re going to take a look at the top Democratic pickup opportunities. Although the Democrats picked up seats in 2004 to reach a 25-25 tie in the Senate, the Republicans will still be defending 15 seats in 2008, 5 more than the Democrats. Not only will the GOP go into 2008 with more seats to defend, they will be a party that is deeply divided. Nearly half of the Republicans in the State Senate walked out of the leadership election in November. They haven’t become much more unified since. Here are a list of the three most vulnerable seats that the divided Republican caucus will have to defend in 2008:
1. Larry McKibben (Marshall and Hardin Counties). McKibben represents a district that Chet Culver won by nearly 1500 votes in 2006. It consists of Marshall County, a traditionally strong Democratic county and Hardin, a mildly Republican leaning county. In 2004, McKibben edged out the Democratic candidate, Wayne Sawtelle, a labor activist, by less than 800 votes. McKibben owed his victory to piling up a huge lead in Hardin County, despite running significantly behind George Bush in Marshall County. The large labor community in Marshalltown will still be gunning for McKibben in 2008 and McKibben won’t be running on anywhere near as strong a ticket in 2008. With Tom Harkin up for Senate and Selden Spencer making a more serious attempt to run against Tom Latham, McKibben won’t have the advantages he had in 2004. He’s hanging on by a slim thread and this race will probably be decided again by less than 1000 votes.
2. James Hahn (Cedar, most of Muscatine and a little of Johnson counties). Hahn, one of the 8 anti-Lundby Republicans in the State Senate, defeated incumbent Democrat Thomas Fiegen after redistricting in 2004. Fiegen previously only represented the Cedar County part of the district and lost his bid for re-election in the new district by less than 2000 votes. This will be another place where the Democrats will benefit from having a much stronger ticket. The 2004 Democratic candidate for U.S. House, long-shot Dave Franker will be replaced on the ticket by incumbent Representative Dave Loebsack. This means there will be a whole lot more resources available in Muscatine County, a county which isn’t that important in a statewide race but is a crucial swing county in the 2nd Congressional District. John Kerry won Muscatine County in 2004 by 500 votes despite a weak showing statewide. Chet Culver won it by 2000 votes. If the Democratic Presidential nominee has a Chet Culver-like performance in the Presidential and gets 55% of the vote, this seat should go. If Iowa continues to be a tightly contested swing state, it probably won’t.
3. Mary Lundby (Linn) Although Lundby is the Republican leader in the State Senate, she is one of the most moderate members of the Republican Caucus who replaced former leader Stew Iverson in a coup in April 2006. She was also one of two Republican State Senators to oppose an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to ban gay marriage during the last legislative session. Her socially moderate views make her a good fit for a State Senate district that has about 12,000 Democrats, 12,000 Republicans and 17,000 Independents in the suburbs of Cedar Rapids that she won with nearly 60% of the vote in 2004. However, it does not make her a good fit in the Republican Party of Iowa which is dominated by social conservatives. Her only ally in the Republican caucus on the gay marriage issue, Maggie Tinsman, was defeated in the 2006 primary by an extreme right wing organization called Iowans for Tax Relief. She was beaten by a fellow who can best be described as the Steve King of East Iowa, David Hartsuch. Considering that half the Republicans in the State Senate don’t support Lundby, it won’t be a surprise if Iowans for Tax Relief tried to beat Lundby in the primary. If they do, an ultra conservative will be very vulnerable in this moderate seat. The other possibility is that Lundby, a cancer survivor may call it quits. After all, why would anyone in their right mind really want to manage a Senate caucus with a proclivity for sectarian violence that would make an Iraqi province blush? If the seat becomes open, it will become an extremely competitive race and with compartively high costs to run a campaign in the Cedar Rapids media market, it will easily become the most expensive State Senate race in the state. However, if Lundby stays on the nature of the district makes it Republican favored but still competitive. However, the mix of all three possibilities, a Republican primary, retirement and re-election keeps this seat highly competitive.
Other vulnerable Republicans are (in alphabetical order): Jeff Angelo (South-Central Iowa), Jerry Behn (Boone and Dallas Counties), John Putney (Benton, Grundy, Tama and part of Iowa County), Brad Zaun (suburban Polk County) and Mark Ziemann (Allamakee, Chickasaw, Howard and Winneshiek Counties)
Conn Carroll over at Hotline has been interviewing Iowa bloggers, and the first interview (of Chris from Political Forecast) went up on their Blogometer today. The IowaProgress team just finished our interview, which should go up in the next few days as well.
And keep checking back here, too, because IowaProgress Radio, our podcast, which has been on a hiatus for quite a while, should be making a comeback in the next day. If you’d like to catch a bit of history, check out our old podcasts from during last year’s gubernatorial primary. Oh how we’ve grown since then.
Hillary Clinton had a wonderful first day in Iowa today but is she ready for the next stage? Estimates of her crowd at East High School in Des Moines range from 1500 to nearly 3000. She got an introduction from Leonard Boswell and has had an interview with David Yepsen that’s as close to a puff piece as Yepsen writes. So what’s next for Hillary?
Although this is a good first step, she still faces major challenges in Iowa winning the support of many caucusgoers, such as Poweshiek County Democrats Co-Chair Don Smith. Smith gives voice to two of the major concerns about Hillary among caucusgoers. Those are the belief that she can’t win a general election and that she has been what Smith describes as “weak on the war issue” or too hawkish on Iraq. Although she addressed both of those issues today, it’s too soon to tell if she’s made any headway.
Finally, Hillary, along with the rest of the Democratic contenders, faces one more new challenge. Bill Richardson has a new anti-Iraq war, celebrity supporter. It’s not Bruce Springsteen, Ben Affleck, or Alec Baldwin, it’s Toby Keith. Keith is an interesting supporter for a Democratic candidate to have, although he’ll probably be viewed as a little weak on the war issue too.
As Chris at Political Forecast points out, Ed Fallon was an active volunteer at John Edwards’ event in Des Moines this weekend. In addition, Denise O’Brien showed up as well. It seems judging from this, Edwards may have an early advantage with the hardcore lefties in the caucuses this year. Considering Edwards was endorsed by Dennis Kucinich for all intents and purposes in 2004, it looks like Edwards will get a lot of support from the Fallon/O’Brien wing of the party this time around. (Not to mention that Kucinich might fall short of the one percent of county convention delegates he received in 2004 this time.)
Although it’s questionable how much pull Fallon actually has, (his “Don’t Write Me In” campaign was astonishingly successful in the General Election), he still received the support of nearly 40,000 voters in the 2006 Gubernatorial primary. And quite a few of those voters were highly enthusastic about him. It’s doubtful whether Fallon’s endorsement has any real weight outside of Fairfield and certain precincts of Iowa City but it doesn’t mean his endorsement’s useless. When Barack Obama attacks John Edwards on his vote in support of the Iraq War, John Edwards will have Fallon to back up his lefty street cred among caucus goers. It’s not the type of endorsement that actually will bring a lot of votes (like that of a major union like AFSCME) but one that’s important because it reassures voters. To paraphrase Thomas Callahan III, it offers a guarantee of lefty credentials that will help keep many prospective Edwards supporters feeling all warm and toasty inside.
