Search Results for ‘state legislature’
Fred Thompson made his Sunday morning talk-show debut as a candidate on “Meet the Press” last week and delivered a mediocre performance. With the Thompson-anticipation boomlet fading and poll numbers falling, Thompson needs to rebound from his unremarkable stances and lackluster debate performance to regain the lead and interest focus in the race.
But the former Tennessee Senator did not make the cut under Tim Russert’s straightforward questions. Thompson bungled several questions, sounded nervous at times, gave few specifics, and offered few solutions to the problems Russert brought to attention.
On Iraq, a question Thompson should have been well prepared for, he seemed stumped.
“MR. RUSSERT: But staying the course, the status quo, can that be our strategy? What is our exit strategy? How long would you stay there?
MR. THOMPSON: Well, it’s, it’s not a, it’s not a stay-the-course when—in, in terms of what’s been going on there. What’s been going on there’s been quite negative. It is a—giving us an opportunity to succeed. You know, we’ve got to, we’ve got take yes for an answer. We got to take success as a, as a reality when we find it.”
But then, two questions later, Thompson redefined his position.
“MR. RUSSERT: But you oppose withdrawing any troops right now.
MR. THOMPSON: Well, I, I, I think we ought to stay on the course that we’re on.”
Russert found many recent quotes from Thompson which sound like the remarks of a novice politician. Thompson also bungled on abortion, making the case for states rights, a woman’s and legislature’s right to choose, and slamming Roe vs. Wade. Thompson does not have a reputation for being especially libertarian, but he seems to be staking out that territory as part of a composite, traditional conservative image. But if he continues to define his own positions and plans so blatantly poorly, he will have minimal support to help him through the primaries.
View the whole transcript at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21623208/
November 9th, 2007
Chris Dodd’s campaign announced that it had received the endorsement of State Rep Ray Zirkelbach today. Zirkelbach served two years in Iraq with the National Guard (and is the second Iraq veteran in the Iowa Legislature to make an endorsement in two days.) However, while Dodd’s campaign found an endorsement by an influential young Democrat in North East Iowa to be valuable in and of itself. It has added value, it’s one of the few Iowa endorsements that Dodd has received by a non-firefighter.
Dodd has been endorsed nationally by the International Association of Firefighters (or IAFF), which provided his only real major boost of the campaign. The only two Iowa legislators who endorsed Dodd previously, State Senators Jeff Danielson and Tom Hancock were firefighters and, of Dodd’s statewide leadership team that was announced this summer, a third of its members were affiliated with the IAFF. Dodd had IAFF-affiliated county chairs in seven of the ten counties that make up half of the caucus delegates and in four of the top five counties.
While Zirkelbach isn’t a firefighter, (he works at the prison at Anamosa), it’s still of concern for Dodd that his campaign’s leadership still has not expanded very far beyond its base labor support and that an endorsement by a non-firefighter is of note. With competition increasingly fierce even among the “second tier” candidates, Dodd is not going to get very far on caucus night if most of his supporters are just firefighters loyal to their International.
October 12th, 2007
Today was a big day in the Iowa House, where Representatives voted 59-37 to pass Senate File 427, which updates Iowa’s civil rights law to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (and perceived sexual orientation).
Until yesterday, few people expected the bill to make it to the floor of the House at all, even though it passed the Iowa Senate last month. Without a guarantee that the bill would pass (or even a guarantee that all of the Democrats would sign on), the leadership was reluctant to force its members to make a vote that could hurt them in their reelection campaigns. Ex-Speaker and current Minority Leader Chris Rants was doing everything he possibly could to prevent any Republican members from supporting the bill (even though some Republicans were definitely interested), and it looked like he might succeed in forcing a stalemate through the end of the legislative session.
In the end, though, the Democratic leadership put civil rights ahead of political concerns, and put the bill up to a vote. The result was a resounding victory. And, although Murphy and McCarthy have been getting a lot of grief about VOICE and a few other issues that have worked up our blogging community, this should earn them back some street cred.
More from Mark’s diary over at BleedingHeartland (partially cross-posted with permission):
Senate File 427 updates Iowa’s Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination in employment, public accommodation, housing, education, or credit practices based on age, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.
The discussion on various blogs throughout the state over the past few months has focused on what the Iowa Legislature has FAILED to accomplish - rather than the victories. This bill is truly a victory for progressives and for everyone who would like to call Iowa home. Leadership in both chambers made this bill a priority throughout the session - and now we can separate ourselves from the 33 other states where it’s OK to dismiss employees because of their real or perceived sexual orientation.
In particular, it was leadership from Democrats in cooperation with Iowa businesses and civil rights leaders who pushed this bill through to final passage. Corporate America is rapidly realizing that creating a tolerant atmosphere for everyone to work is an important part of growing a business - and a state. According to an article in Fortune Magazine:
So it’s clear where big business is going. What’s interesting is to watch it pull the rest of the country along. It turns out that the most important factor shaping people’s feelings about gay issues is not their age or even their religion - although those do matter - but whether they have relatives, friends or co-workers who are gay.
“The more out and open people are, the more changed the straight people are all around them,” says Joe Solmonese, the Human Rights Campaign president. HRC began organizing workplaces to secure benefits for gay employees. This has inadvertently become a shrewd political strategy as well. “To move the mindset of the American people, we need to find the places where they congregate,” Solmonese says. “Priority one is corporate America.”
April 26th, 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
We, along with other Iowa blogs, frequently bash the Des Moines Register, particularly the often pompous David Yepsen and the always useless Jane Norman (who did a great job transcribing a Chuck Grassley news release the other day–after all, stenography is easier than reporting). However, a story yesterday about internet hunting hit the nail on the head. It would ban hunting live animals over the internet using a webcam and a remote controlled rifle. While many find the practice objectionable, the reporter, Jennifer Jacobs, astutely points out the one problem with the bill, there is no internet hunting. Although a Texas entrepreneur tried to set up such a venture several years ago, the state of Texas almost immediately shut it down. It was the first and, to date, last attempt at internet hunting.
Even the sponsor of the bill, Republican Steven Lukan, does not know of anyone participating in internet hunting. But he wants to ban it anyway. Why? Because this is the rare type of non-controversial bill that gets a lot of easy publicity. While other state representatives busy themselves with dull tasks like spurring Iowa’s economic development and balancing the state’s budget, Steven Lukan finds it easier to ban something that does not exist. It is a waste of the legislature’s time and of taxpayer money. One wonders when Lukan will amend the bill to make it clear that the ban on internet hunting applies to unicorns.
March 2nd, 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
The Quad City Times is reporting that the Fair Share proposal for non-union employees to pay their fair share of the benefits they receive due to working in union shops might be dead for the legislative session. The Republican Party has been solid in their opposition to this measure. It’s part of their anti-labor and anti-working families agenda. One hopes that enough votes can be mustered up in the next few days to pass Fair Share and to help puncture the myth that weak labor unions are somehow correlated with a strong business environment. After all, aren’t “right to work” states like Mississippi and Wyoming centers of economic growth? If Iowa wants to attract new businesses, emulating Mississippi is not the wisest way to do so.
And frankly, the opposition to Fair Share has nothing to do with attracting businesses to the state. As a University of Iowa economist pointed out recently, “why would a unionized company care how many of its workers paid how much to the union?” The opposition to fair share isn’t about making sure that people can avoid paying for benefits they receive or about attracting business to Iowa, it’s about Republicans who want to hurt organized labor and working families in the state of Iowa. It’s a shame that even with a Democratic legislature, the Republicans may still be able to impede such an important piece of legislation.
February 28th, 2007
While most people think that the Iowa Legislature’s passage of a bill to authorize stem cell research was an important step that offers hope to tens of millions of Americans suffering a wide range of horrible diseases and ailments, there are some dissenting voices. A far-right wing Catholic organization called Fidelis denounced the passage of the bill as “a shameful and cowardly flip flop.” Fidelis also pointed out who the real villain was behind the bill. It wasn’t Chet Culver, Mike Gronstal or Pat Murphy. It was “California rock star” Sheryl Crow. Apparently Crow called a wavering Democratic state legislator and encouraged him to vote for the bill, although the legislator, Brian Quirk of New Hampton, said that he was swayed not by Crow, but by the more mundane concept of giving sick people hope. Despite that, Fidelis still attacked Sheryl Crow for her role in corrupting the state of Iowa. The attacks may not be true but all Fidelis really wants to do is have some fun.
On a side note, fierce stem cell opponent Betty DeBoef, voted for the bill. Why? Apparently, she pressed the wrong button on the voting machine. When you can’t operate a two button machine on one of the most important bills of the year, something’s really wrong. There have been rumors that DeBoef might retire for sometime. A mishap like this can only make it more likely that DeBoef will follow Iowa’s ban on stem cell research off into the sunset.
February 24th, 2007
The State Legislature is moving forward on a bill that would allow Iowans to register and vote on Election Day. The bill has the supported by Governor Culver and Secretary of State Mike Mauro. We’ve talked about this issue before but same day registration is linked to higher turnout and is the best way to make sure that what happened in Florida in 2000 can never happen in Iowa. It’s a fantastic bill and, hopefully, it should pass the General Assembly and become law in time for the 2008 election.
February 21st, 2007
As the Quad-City Times reports the consensus in the State Legislature seems to be moving towards allowing counties to ban smoking in the workplace. This is probably the best first step towards gradually banning smoking in every workplace in Iowa. Places ranging from the United Kingdom to New York City have already passed comprehensive workplace smoking ban with no negative consequences and the bill would allow Iowa counties and municipalities the opportunity to do so as well. Smoking causes a variety of health problems and workplace bans help to spare workers and customers from being exposed to second hand smoke. The government does everything possible to protect coal miners from suffering serious health problems on the job, shouldn’t bartenders and waitresses deserve the same protection? It is also clear that smoking bans have no negative economic consequences.
An interesting issue is from what quarters will support for the legislation come from. It is legislation that cuts across traditional party lines. Some Democrats may be too libertarian to support it, while some Republicans feel that this is an area where government should intervene. It’s an issue that has not been calcified to the point where you can expect every member of one party to support it and every member of the other to be against it. One hopes that there can be bipartisan support for allowing county and local governments to ban smoking in workplaces. It is a good first step and it is one that will save a lot of lives at almost no cost.
February 19th, 2007
Next Posts
Previous Posts
