Search Results for ‘senator grassley’
In an interview with The Hill, Tom Harkin made his suggestion for who the Democratic nominee for the Vice Presidency should be. Harkin suggested a well-known liberal from the Northeast. Not Chuck Schumer or Chris Dodd but, instead, Jon Stewart. Harkin thought the Daily Show host was the best fit for the number two spot on the ticket. When asked if he would consider being Vice President himself, Harkin said, “No, I’d have Jon Stewart stand in for me. Jon Stewart. That’s my guy.” Harkin is the first super delegate to come out in support of Stewart. However, so far, Stewart has not collected the endorsement of a single pledged delegate.
Chuck Grassley was also asked if he was interested in being the Vice Presidential nominee of his party. Grassley’s response was “I’m too old to be vice president. But I am young enough to be reelected to the Senate.” That seems to be a pretty clear declaration again that Grassley is running in 2010. And when he does run, Iowa Progress has found the perfect opponent for him.
May 17th, 2008
It is increasingly unlikely that Ed Fallon will win the Third District Primary as his campaign is both broke and languishing far behind Leonard Boswell in the polls. The question now arises what will professional candidate Ed Fallon run for next? Fallon is a professional candidate at this point (and, thanks to the still open Fallon Loophole, can still make a good living running for office). There are several possibilities for Fallon. The first is running for Mayor of Des Moines against Frank Cownie in 2011. Cownie is a leading environmentalist, which makes him a prime target for Fallon who actively worked to defeat Al Gore in 2000. However, that election is three years away and the Mayor of Des Moines only makes $31,500 a year. Fallon would be much better served continuing his I’M For Iowa gig rather embarking so soon on a campaign for a weak office so far in the future.
Another possibility is Polk County Supervisor. This job pays $93,000, which is more than Ed Fallon has ever lapped up from the public trough in a single year so far. However, Fallon lives in the area represented by John Mauro. Although Mauro’s reputation has been tainted by association with CIETC, Fallon’s ethical lapses in regards for IM for Iowa and his attempts to cover up that misconduct make Mauro look like the second coming of Abraham Lincoln. While Fallon has never showed any fear of entering in races he’s likely to lose, it seems unlikely he’d want to tangle with La Macchina in a district that is almost entirely on the South Side. This is especially true when Fallon is probably the only candidate who Christine Hensley would support a Mauro over.
Fallon could also run for State Senate against Jack Hatch in 2010. Although Hatch endorsed Boswell, he was one of two State Senators to vote against closing the Fallon Loophole and unlike most other elected Democrats in Polk County, he has not been vehemently opposed to Fallon and has even attended a Fallon event or two as a polite observer. However, in Fallon’s political career, loyalty has not been one of Fallon’s most notable traits. He endorsed Nader in 2000, considered running as a third party candidate against Chet Culver in 2006 and refused a pledge to support all Democrats on the ticket in 2002. (One wonders whether Fallon was more conflicted about supporting Tom Harkin or Tom Vilsack.) In that light, stabbing Jack Hatch in the back seems like small potatoes. However, while Hatch’s district includes many places Fallon has represented in the past, a State Senator only makes about $30,000 a year and as a state candidate, Fallon could lose income in the remaining interval if the Legislature actually closes the Fallon Loophole and keeps Fallon from paying himself from campaign contributions. But there is one office Ed Fallon could run for where he would never have to worry about the Iowa Legislature cutting into his earnings.
Chuck Grassley is up for Senate in 2010 and Fallon would make an admirable Democratic nominee. Aside from giving Fallon the chance to earn nearly $170,000, he could pay himself a salary without worrying about any legislation from Rick Olson to cut off the gravy train. It would also be the one office where Fallon would not have to primary an incumbent and would have a chance to receiving the backing of the entire Democratic establishment as Ed Fallon possesses a very rare skill that is essential to running against Grassley. After all, what politician in Iowa has more experience and talent at turning receiving only 25% of the vote into a victory?
No matter what office Ed Fallon runs for in the future, there is one thing for certain. Professional political candidate Ed Fallon will be running for office again.
May 5th, 2008
I know David Yepsen gets dragged through the mud an awful lot in these parts, so I figured it was only fair to give credit where credit is due. In his column today, he provides a fairly accurate analysis of Iowa’s 2008 Senate race–or lackthereof.
Yepsen notes that “No big-name Republican challengers have emerged, just some unknowns” and that even Republican Senator Charles Grassley was unable to name any potential challengers. Yepsen then recounts the standard lore of how Harkin has defeated more sitting Republican Congressmen than any Democrat in the history of the Senate (has anyone ever been to a Harkin Steak Fry and not heard Democrats crow about that?).
I had written previously about Harkin’s potential retirement, though as I made clear in that post, there was really no need to worry. With 2008 shaping up to be a Democratic year, at least in the Senate, it now seems that his race will be easier than ever.
Alas, I couldn’t sign off without one dig at Yepsen. He writes almost-correctly that “Democrats quit being serious about trying to knock off Grassley years ago” (Sorry Art Small). I say “almost” because I’ve been hearing the rumblings of a Vilsack-Grassley match up. Let’s keep our fingers crossed. It would be the best chance we’ve had in a while to take Grassley out and it would be a monster of a Senate race, something the Hawkeye State hasn’t seen in years.
April 9th, 2007
Now that Tom Vilsack has dropped out, there is no chance that an Iowan will be elected President in 2008. (Sorry Sal) In fact, under the assumption that Vilsack’s Presidential ambitions are now permanently scuppered, it is unlikely that any other Iowa politician will be mounting a credible bid for the Presidency in the foreseeable future. That leaves Iowa’s best chance for the Presidency to be filled through its two Senators, Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin, both of whom, provided they stay in the Senate, are starting to get close to the level of seniority necessary to be President Pro Tempore of the Senate. This is a ceremonial position in the Senate mandated by the Constitution that has been filled in the past by such aged members as Strom Thurmond and Ted Stevens and is currently held by Robert Byrd. It has traditionally been held by the most senior member of the majority party since the 1940s. However, it is also third in the current line of succession to the Presidency after the Vice President and the Speaker of the House.
That the members of the Legislative branch are eligible to be President is a weird quirk in the system as Norman Orenstein points out in the Washington Post. However, Orenstein’s suggestion of limiting the line of succession to unelected cabinet members and others designated by the Presidents is completely undemocratic. In fact, even the succession of a Vice President to the Presidency is not quite right. After all, we don’t have Vice Senators or Vice Congressman and many states have special elections if there is a vacancy for the Governorship. The logical and fair thing to do is to hold a special election for the Presidency. In fact, there’s pretty clear historical evidence that the Founders only intended the Vice President to serve as President until another could be elected. The resulting historical drift over the next two centuries has gradually set the precedent that not only does the Vice President serve out the rest of the President’s term but has also built the assumption that everyone after the Vice President will do so as well. (Although this concept has not been tested in practice.) What would make sense is to make it explicit that a special election will occur the November after a vacancy in the Presidency (unless there is less than a year left in the President’s term). This would insure that the President would be democratically elected. If there is a sitting Vice President, he would become “Acting President.” However, if there is a double vacancy, the least worst option would be allow Congress to fill both offices temporarily according to the method outlined in the 12th Amendment in case of a deadlock in the Electoral College.
This type of debate can seem somewhat academic, after all it deals with interpreting centuries of constitutional precedents to prepare for a highly unlikely event. However, as unlikely as this event is, it is worth preparing for as it would have a catastrophic impact on our nation’s government. Should something so unlikely occur, we need to be prepared to make sure that the will of the people is heard. It is what our county was founded upon and the will of the people will not be heard if we have President Robert Byrd or President Ted Stevens.
March 3rd, 2007
One day after Tom Vilsack ended his bid for the Presidency, there is already speculation about what his next step will be. Century of the Common Iowan passes on speculation that Tom Harkin might retire and that Vilsack would run for his seat. However, Harkin retirement rumors were aired and debunked earlier this year and it seems very likely that Harkin will run for re-election. Especially since 2008 seems like the first relatively easy race that he’ll have since he was back in the U.S. House of Representatives.
One of the key assumptions of the Vilsack for Senate speculation is that “Money Vilsack raised for his presidential bid could be transferred to a Senate campaign fund.” Considering it’s quite likely that Tom Vilsack’s presidential campaign is heavily in the red, all that he could transfer is debt. It seems more likely that Vilsack will spend a couple of years making money. Even while he was running for President, he accepted a job with Mid-American Energy as a consultant. Being a former public official is a very lucrative job and there’s no reason to think that Vilsack won’t take advantage of that for a couple of years and enjoy life as a prosperous public citizen.
But there is some speculation about Tom Vilsack’s future that is much more intriguing at the end of the post on Century of The Common Iowan. It is whether Vilsack would run for Chuck Grassley’s seat in 2010. Grassley would be 77 years old then and might even retire rather than run for re-election. If Grassley doesn’t retire, Vilsack would probably be the only Democrat in the state who could run a credible campaign against the very popular Grassley. By then, Vilsack will have had several years to make some money and pay off campaign debt. Of course, 2010 is a long way off and a lot of things could happen between now and then. But a Vilsack-Grassley scenario seems much more likely than Tom Harkin retiring. Plus, it has the added benefit of holding out the possibility of a day not too far away when Iowa has two Democratic Senators for the first time since 1978. And that sounds pretty good to me.
February 24th, 2007
At an appearance in Des Moines yesterday, Jeff Lamberti said that he would’ve opposed earmarking money for the $50 million indoor rainforest project that is in the works for Iowa. Now one might assume that he is trying to draw out the differences between himself and his opponent, incumbent Leonard Boswell, as politicians normally do when campaigning for election. But Boswell voted against the appropriation of those funds. The person responsible is Republican Senator Charles Grassley, who publicly announced that he had set aside the funds for the project. So Lamberti is criticizing a member of his own party in order to say that he would’ve done what his opponent did?
Yes, but Lamberti is still trying to use this as an avenue to criticize Boswell for being fiscally irresponsible. Here is what Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, speaking at the same event, had to say about it:
“Leonard Boswell (has) a record of not being in favor of reducing federal pork, and obviously … you have a record of being very much in favor of reducing that,” he said.
Wait, I’m sorry, that statement is incomprehensible. I think what Lamberti and Mehlman are trying to say is that Boswell, a member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, is irresponsibly sending money to his home state to fund frivolous projects—such as freeway repairs on I-235.
Not only has Lamberti been complaining about repaving the roads, but he also looks for other creative ways to make it look like Boswell is spending too much money, such as attack ads featuring “false and misleading claims.” This might’ve worked if they weren’t so blatantly inaccurate that the television stations refused to play them.
It’s baffling that these guys are still trying to paint Boswell as fiscally irresponsible when he has a strong record of balancing state and federal budgets–something the Republicans have trouble doing.
September 22nd, 2006
So Congress.org just released congressional Power Rankings, and lo and behold, Iowa is doing pretty well.
Congressmen (and women) were ranked according to 15 ‘characteristics of power,’ including things like positions, influence, and legislative activity. You guys should probably just check out the background page to learn about their methodology, but here are some highlights:
In addition, the project team recognized that Members of Congress can exert or possess power that can’t be measured by these standard measures. Therefore, we created the “Sizzle/Fizzle” factor. For example, Sizzle factors can include a legislator’s unique background and experience (Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)) or relationships (Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)) or newfound popularity (Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)) that somehow adds weight to their power that is not scored in the other categories. In contrast, Fizzle factors can be applied to legislators who have seen their power diminish during the year, despite their position, due to scandal or other factors that impair the ability of the member to be effective. This was the only subjective criteria and was not weighted heavily in the overall ratings.
…
The Power Rankings project team acknowledges that Members of Congress sometimes exercise power in ways that cannot be seen or measured. The most tangible example of this is the ability to steer federal funding to their state through the appropriations process – called “earmarking.”
After these and other such stunning insights into the congressional processes, they came up with the following results:
Top five Senators:
1. Bill Frist (R-TN) 96.75
2. Arlen Specter (R-PA) 82.31
3. John McCain (R-AZ) 80.94
4. Charles Grassley (R-IA) 78.50
5. Harry Reid (D-NV) 71.06
Top five Representatives:
1. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) 97.25
2. Tom DeLay (R-TX) 63.50
3. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) 60.57
4. Don Young (R-AK) 55.00
5. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) 48.00
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it here first, Chuck is the 4th most powerful Senator, making Iowa proud–well, sort of.
Other surprises? Well, Tom DeLay is the #2 rep, although, one must suspect he has a pretty high Fizzle Factor, seeing as he resigned from office.
So how does Iowa stack up? Well, our fine state as a whole ranked third most powerful, with 28.92, after Nevada with 29.76 and New Mexico with 28.96. The scores come from the average of the state’s congressional delegate’s scores. Harkin weighed in at 37.94, which puts him at 35. For reps, we got Nussle at 54th with 23.44, Leach is at 69th place with 22.00, Latham is 190 with 15.50, and King is 208 with 14.94, and Grinnell’s own Boswell had a whopping 10.12, making him the 302nd most powerful representative.
Okay, so now you’re asking, so what? You’ve soldiered through this kinda long post full of numbers whose meanings are at best ill-defined and whose significance is probably illusory and you are wondering what this all means. Well, me too. Why did Congress.org do this? I don’t know! Can power be quantified? Probably not! Does this mean Iowa is going to be the proud recipient of more pork-barrell spending? Again, probably not (plus, don’t we produce pork?). Is Nussle going to call up Boswell to boast his numerical superiority tonight? One can only imagine.
May 16th, 2006
Senator, whether it’s explaining away Alito’s ethical missteps (the gist—senators lie so why expect federal judges to keep their word?), or championing Bush’s DOA social security reforms, or trying to make Swiss cheese out of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, you’ve been playing rubberstamp republican for quite some time.
That’s why your “rare slap” at the Bush administration—calling for drug czar John Walters to be fired for a failure to act “fast enough to combat the rising use of methamphetamine”—comes to us as such a shock. A public disagreement with the Bush administration? Senator, is there something wrong?
Hopefully this isn’t the start of an independent streak; Iowans can’t have the Grassley we’ve come to know and love go and change on us. Senator, need we remind of your roots?
As a former assembly line worker, you know what it means to be a hard working blue-collar American. That’s why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce gives you a 100% pro-business rating, while the AFL-CIO gives you a 0% rating on your support for unions.
With five children and PhD work, you know the importance of education. That’s why you voted against moving $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education.
As a proud man of faith, you know that attempts to reduce teen pregnancy through education and contraceptives should be stopped at all costs. That’s just part of why NARAL gives a 0% rating to your support for reproductive rights.
Chuck, you have been serving Iowans for almost fifty years, don’t let us down now.
Next time you feel like breaking with the Bush administration, make sure it’s about corn syrup. We like that.
-Your loving state, Iowa.
April 27th, 2006
In response to a constituent letter from another student, Senator Grassley writes
I believe the original Patriot Act and the current Patriot Act Conference Report provide the right balance between assisting our law enforcement agencies with the means to combat terror while protecting the civil liberties that we as Americans hold so dear. You should know that virtually all of the actions taken by the Federal government under the Patriot Act are reviewed by independent Federal judges.
Virtually all? I don’t know about you, Chuck, but the administration hasn’t exactly earned my trust lately in consulting independent judges.
Here’s hoping Feingold’s move to censure Bush is taken seriously.
March 13th, 2006
