Search Results for ‘state representative’
Iowa State Representative McKinley Bailey announced his endorsement of Joe Biden today. Bailey is a first term State Representative and was widely courted by Presidential campaigns because of his service in Iraq in the 82nd Airborne Division. Biden has picked up endorsements from a number of Iowa legislators as part of his campaign’s increased focus on the caucuses. Bailey is also a member of a prominent political family in Hamilton County. However, his father, Hamilton County Supervisor Doug Bailey has not just endorsed Obama, but is a member of Obama’s statewide leadership team.
It’s also interesting to note that Hillary Clinton announced her retirement savings plan in the Bailey family’s hometown of Webster City. It seems the Clinton campaign may be using the split between father and son to scoop up support in North Central Iowa.
However, regardless of what the Clinton campaign does, it appears that Thanksgiving and Christmas may be interesting in the Bailey family. While many Iowa families may go to the caucus together, it does necessarily mean that they support the same candidate when they get to their caucus location.
October 11th, 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
State Representative Dawn Pettengill left the Democratic caucus for the Republican caucus today. The Register has the story from Chris Rants’s press conference, which just happened:
The change cuts the Democratic majority in the House to 53 seats and gives minority Republicans 47 seats. It takes 51 votes to pass legislation.
Pettengill had battled publicly with the House Democratic caucus this year over issues such as labor union fees and the cigarette tax increase. She had indicated publicly she might consider leaving the caucus, although she had suggested she was more likely to become an independent.
“The House Democratic leadership pursued an agenda which veered far from the principles for which my constituents and I stand,” she said in a statement. “My decision gives me the best opportunity to represent the values of my constituents.”
This is going to make progressives — particularly the ones I know who knocked doors for her during the last campaign — pretty unhappy. Pettengill is known for her emotional outbursts, and my sense is that she perceives her district to be more conservative than it actually is.
I posted a while back about why I didn’t think Pettengill was going to defect. It turns out I was wrong. This kind of transition, from the majority to the minority (particularly when it looks like the Republicans will likely remain in the minority through next campaign cycle) is surprising, but Pettengill planted the seed for a defection months ago.
As an aside, this comes as a double-disappointment for many progressives, who were hoping that Rants planned to announce his resignation today. Rumors that he will resign have been circulating for months, and there is no word yet on whether Pettengill’s switch will influence his decision on that one way or the other.
April 30th, 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
Our friend Mark posted a little discussion of the work our state legislators are doing to combat global warming (and, in doing so, protect Iowa agriculture). Unfortunately, one Republican State Rep, Dwayne Alons of Hull, IA, has his own ideas about “growing” Iowa — literally! From Mark’s post (emphasis added):
Republicans have taken an extreme position on this particular bill. For example, during the committee meeting on the bill, Representative Duane Alons made a comparison between Iowa in 2007 and ancient Mayan cultures. He argued that global warming would be good for Iowa. He believes that ancient Mayans were giants - taller & stronger than modern men and women. He argues they were giants (and this is a good thing) because of warm temperatures. Ancient cyclical warming helped Mayans become giants!
Republicans are trotting out the same unscientific arguments against doing anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They argue that if we decrease CO2 emissions we will decrease crop yields in Iowa - ignoring the impact of insects, drought, and shifting rainfall patterns on crop yields. The scientific consensus is that CO2 induced warming will devastate agricultural production in Iowa - and around the world.
So let’s stop fighting global warming and start encouraging it! Maybe if we’re giants, it won’t matter that the earth is dying!
April 18th, 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
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
Bill Richardson is coming to Iowa in early March and one of the events on his schedule is a house party at the Indianola residence of State Representative Mark Davitt. Needless to say, when a state legislator has a house party for a Presidential candidate, it seems quite likely that the state legislator is supporting that candidate. And if Davitt is endorsing Richardson, it offers Richardson a major boost in Warren County.
Davitt is a well-liked State Representative who defeated another popular incumbent, former State Senator Doug Shull, to win re-election to his third term in 2006. Davitt’s family also has strong local roots. His father also served as a State Representative from Warren County and his wife is the publisher of the local paper. Davitt is the leading Democrat in the 14th most important county in the state in the Iowa Caucuses.
Mark Davitt is comparatively unknown next to another politician who endorsed a candidate in the caucuses this week, Tom Daschle, who endorsed Barack Obama. But it’s doubtful whether the mind of any caucusgoer will be swayed by Tom Daschle’s endorsement. However, while Mark Davitt is nowhere near as well known nationally or even statewide as Daschle, his opinion is a lot more likely to sway caucus goers, particularly those in Warren County. Iowa Caucuses are not won by the endorsements of major national politicians, they are won by the support of well-respected community leaders like Mark Davitt. If Davitt is backing Richardson, his endorsement is worth more than that of 10 Tom Daschles.
February 25th, 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
Next Posts
Previous Posts
