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
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
