Search Results for ‘taking the lead’
The increasing buzz that Leonard Boswell might face a primary challenge from former State Representative Ed Fallon leads to some interesting questions.
The first question is, what effect does this have on the caucuses? There are less than two weeks left and a prominent supporter of John Edwards is going after a prominent supporter of Hillary Clinton. What effect does this have on media perceptions of Edwards and Clinton and does it change the storyline at all? At this point, the political press is so focused on Iowa that the slightest bit of political news in the state can make national headlines.
Second, is how does this effect Republican efforts to recruit a candidate. As of now, there is no Republican candidate who is publicly expressed interest in running for Congress in the Third District and NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committee) is still husbanding its scarce national resources, Boswell’s seat wasn’t expected to be a high priority. However, now with a primary, the RNCC might take a second look and bump up a congressional district that George Bush won in 2004 on its list of priorities. It’s also worth noting that Tom Cole, the NRCC Chair, went to college in the Third District at Grinnell.
Finally, the question is what the storyline for a Boswell-Fallon race would be. Although the netroots is already getting excited about the race, depicting it as a strong progressive leader taking on an out of touch, geriatric incumbent. However, the election could just as easily be depicted as an accordion playing, Kucinich supporter running against a war hero and family farmer. Both are valid story lines and it seems likely that the one that will emerge will be an amalgamation of the two. But one of those two options is likely to become the dominant theme of media coverage of the race and how it is perceived not just by the press but by voters.
No matter what, this will be an interesting race to watch. Iowa is traditionally a state very friendly to incumbents and the only significant primary challenge that an incumbent has faced in recent memory was Fred Gandy’s unsuccessful attempt to unseat Terry Bransted in the Republican primary for Governor in 1994. But turnout in primary elections is traditionally low (only 11% of voters participated in either the Democratic or Republican Primary in 2006) and anything can happen in a low turnout election. Unfortunately, no matter how this race takes shape, one thing is certain. Only a low percentage of voters will end up participating in a Boswell vs Fallon primary and the winner will be the candidate most able to take advantage of the unique dynamics of this race.
December 24th, 2007
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
An article in The New Republic this week chronicles how Mike Huckabee sold out his belief in balanced budgets and fiscal conservatism to gain the support of anti-tax fanatics like Grover Norquist. This meant embracing the “fair tax” which is a highly regressive economic program that puts a disproportionate burden on working Americans and puts more money in the pockets of the wealthy by replacing our tax system with a sales of at least 30%. This marriage of convenience has already benefited Huckabee at the Ames Straw Poll. However, on most issues, Mike Huckabee doesn’t need to sell out to embracing fringe ideas. Most of the time, he already is embracing strange and extremist views on his own.
Although Huckabee’s opposition to evolution is well known, his embrace of the intellectual and scientific fringes is far more wide ranging. Huckabee just announced that State Rep Dwayne Alons will be one of his Iowa campaign legislative co-chairs. (Alons joins former State Rep and conman Danny Carroll in taking a leadership role on the campaign.) Alons has publicly advocated his theory that the ancient Maya were a race of giants and that global warming will enable modern man to be as gigantic as the ancient Maya.
So to sum up Mike Huckabee’s view of the universe, the Maya were giants, the world was created 6,000 years ago and the best way to help poor people is have a 30% sales tax. It seems like Huckabee’s more fit to run for President of the Flat Earth Society than the United States.
October 3rd, 2007
Hillary Clinton held a event this afternoon in a coffeeshop in Newton. It was a small event, maybe 80 people were there. Christine Vilsack spoke briefly and introduced the senator, stating that she supports Clinton because her extensive experience will allow her to get results in Washington.
Clinton herself spoke for a half hour. She called for universal health care and attacked insurance company bureacracies for making it hard for ordinary Iowans to receive inexpensive medical treatment. Also, she spoke in favor of college education being more accessible and inexpensive for everyone. There was a lot of applause for that. However, when she voiced her support for a women’s right to choose, there was a mixed response from the crowd.
She spoke out against the corruption by lobbyists and large corporations in Washington, asking for a return to honesty in the political arena. The crowd seemed to find this message quite appealing.
She gave the most attention to the subject of Iraq, when she stated that the U.S. had helped Iraqis and given Iraqis the chance to form a stable government in their country, but that it was time to take the troops out and let the Iraqis form a stable government for themselves. She did not outline a plan for withdrawal. However, when she next brought up Iran, she spoke out against the lack of diplomatic talks with Iran by the U.S. and asked for “diplomatic solutions” to the nuclear issue.
At the end, Clinton graciously thanked the crowd and asked for support. She took only a few questions. One man asked how much Senators earn a month. She fielded it fluidly, giving her guess in the six-figure range and taking it as an opportunity to claim that she had not voted for any pay increases in Congress. The next question came from a woman from Progress Industries, asking for Clinton’s support for people with disabilities in the workplace. She championed Tom Harkin as the leader of rights for people with disabilities in Congress, but did not go into much detail about her own position. The last question was hard to near and not repeated, but her response was to speak against the Bush administration for bypassing the UN before the invasion of Iraq.
She ended the event by mingling with the crowd and answering a few questions individually.
April 21st, 2007
Cedar Rapids businessman Steve Rathje (pronounced Rah-CHEE) filed papers to run for the Republican nomination for US Senate over a year ago, but yesterday he made it public. How serious a candidate is he? And how does he feel about higher-profile candidates getting into the race?
Still, he isn’t well-known to the broader public and there has been speculation that someone better known might mount a bid.
Much of that talk has centered on U.S. Rep. Steve King, a Republican from western Iowa. King is a favorite with conservatives but hasn’t shown any signs yet that he’s running.
Rathje dismissed the idea that another congressman could win. Three already have lost to Harkin.
“There is no doubt in my mind history will repeat itself if given the opportunity,” he said.
He added Republicans are taking his candidacy seriously, pointing to the attendance of Leon Mosley, co-chair of the Republican Party of Iowa, at his announcement.
I’m not sure if the fact that one person from the RPI appearing at an announcement event is a sign that the campaign is actually serious, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. I wish I could tell you about his positions on issues, but that page on his web site is blank. But guessing from the information that we do have available, his campaign is going to be fun:
One member of his steering committee, Linda Smith of Cedar Rapids, is the former Linn County chair of Pat Robertson’s presidential campaign. Another member, Bonnie K. Bell, is an executive rent-a-cop at HyVee. Also on board are former chemical company executive Steve Weeber, who serves as Chair of the Simpson College Trustees, and J. David Nichols, whom BEEF Magazine selected as one of the 40 most important BEEF people over the past 40 years. In general, the list is pretty heavy on Johnson, Linn, and Hamilton Counties.
On Rathje’s contact page, he lists his campaign manager as Bill Wirth, and his committee address is Coralville. That leads me to deduce that Wirth is probably the same man who, in 1979, lost one of the closest city council elections in Coralville history (scroll to the bottom of this page for information). He is also a State Farm insurance salesman. This probably isn’t the mark of a serious campaign.
Unfortunately, that’s about all I have been able to find out about him. News reports don’t even mention him when they speculate on Harkin’s reelection campaign — and that may be for good reason.
March 7th, 2007
Mary Lundby, the Brutus to Stew Iverson’s Caesar, showed that she had the same ability to read English as her noble Roman predecessor the other day when she said that SF 115, the bill before the Iowa State Senate to allow stem cell research, would allow human cloning. In fact, she went even further than that;
“I’ve seen the deterioration of things that we consider taboo. Gratuitous violence on television and in video games. If you watch any of the prime time sitcoms, the double entendre has new meaning in the fact that it shows up in every other sentence. I just think Iowans are going to draw the line at the process of human cloning.”
Apparently, the reason for stem cell research was Tipper Gore’s failure twenty years ago and it’s just one slippery slope from Darling Nikki to curing Parkinson’s.
Lundby, along with other Republican all stars like David Hartsuch, are trying conflate stem cell research with human cloning. If they had bothered to read the bill, rather than talking points written by the Iowa Christian Alliance, they would have noticed that the bill explicitly bans human cloning and states that one of the purposes of the bill is “to prohibit human reproductive cloning.” It further goes on to explictly define human reproductive cloning as “human asexual reproduction, using somatic cell nuclear transfer, for implantation or attempted implantation into a woman’s uterus or substitute for a woman’s uterus. ‘Human reproductive cloning’ does not include somatic cell nuclear transfer performed for the purpose of creating embryonic stem cells.” It seems fair enough but you would think from Mary Lundby’s language that Chet Culver was using the proposed state grant for stem cell research to create something out of Blade Runner in Iowa City.
In reality, the Republican caucus in the State Senate, and especially a vulnerable moderate like Mary Lundby, is beholden to the far right wing elements in the Republican Party of Iowa like the Iowa Christian Alliance (in fact, it’s fair say that, to a large extent, the entire RPI is beholden to the Iowa Christian Alliance ) and the right wingers are taking their pound of flesh on this issue. Bill Dotzler gets it right when he says the Republican opposition is based on “politics and semantics, not the issues.” Although adult illiteracy is embarassing, Mary Lundby using it to hide a problem far worse, the fact that she’s playing politics with people’s lives.
February 13th, 2007
In the midst of the stupidity over bloggers and the stupidity over his house, it’s worth noting that John Edwards presented a pretty significant and detailed heath care plan last week. The plan, which was analyzed in detail by Jonathan Cohn at the New Republic, provides universal health care but does so through the use of tax credits to create and fund entities for groups of peopuyle to purchase insurance called “health markets” as well as through an “individual mandate” which is a requirement that everyone b insured. It also allows Medicare to compete with private insurers to provide coverage to people through health markets. It is a complex plan that would be funded by rolling back the Bush tax cuts. Although it has the advantage of “giving people who have insurance something they lack now–more security and more choice–without taking away their coverage,” the complexity this engenders makes it difficult to sell. As Cohn notes “grafting universal coverage onto an already complicated system inevitably means drawing up a complicated plan. That’s not particularly helpful in the current media environment.”
The alternative is a straightforward single payer system like that in a bill before Congress, HR 676, that was introduced by John Conyers (and co-sponsored by Dave Loebsack.) This is the system used in the rest of the western world, which leads to significantly lower health care costs than what we have. A single payer plan would be much more effective but is considered less politically feasible. As a result, it is doubtful that any other serious candidate will advocate for it (as opposed to hopeless publicity seekers). However, it is still possible. The national debate on health care is moving increasingly towards a single payer solution. Edwards, by introducing his plan, laid down his marker but, as the debate develops, other candidates who either seek to flank him on the left or merely keep up with the national debate may introduce single payer plans similar to HR 676. In meantime, we will just have to wait and see what their policy teams cook up.
Barack Obama pledged in his annoucement yesterday that “we will have universal health care in America by the end of the next president’s first term.” However, he hasn’t unveiled his plan yet. In the meantime, John Edwards has been the first candidate to unveil a detailed health care plan. It may not be perfect but it is definitely worthy of respect.
February 11th, 2007
Wal-Mart occupies a special place in the demonology of the American Left–and with good reason. Its business practices lead to the exploitation of workers both at home and overseas and it has paved its path to success on the destruction of countless American small businesses, most of which were located in small towns like Grinnell. These sins have been extensively catagoried by organizations like Wake Up WalMart.
However, Wal-Mart seems to be taking steps to remediate these issues. Most notably, the front page of the New York Times today has an article that describes how Wal-Mart is using its power as the largest store in the nation to encourage consumers to buy more energy-efficient light bulbs. Compared to a traditional incandescent light bulb, a compact flourescent light bulb “uses 75 percent less electricity, lasts 10 times longer, produces 450 pounds fewer greenhouse gases from power plants and saves consumers $30 over the life of each bulb. But it is eight times as expensive as a traditional bulb, gives off a harsher light and has a peculiar appearance.” This is part of an ongoing effort by Wal-Mart to become a better corporate citizen and address a lot of the criticism it’s received. In fact, its new chief lobbyist is a former official in the Clinton Adminstration.
So do these efforts mean Wal-Mart has changed its stripes? I don’t know but it does seem to have some interesting political ramifications. It puts John Edwards, who has taken an active part in the anti-Wal-Mart campaign as part of his attempt to reposition himself as the progressive candidate in 2008, in an interesting position. He’s now criticizing an environmental do-gooder. While Hillary Clinton, who was a member of Wal-Mart’s board until her husband ran for President, doesn’t have to run so far from her past involvement with the largest company in Arkansas. While no Democrat will embrace Wal-Mart (after all, with enemies like SEIU and the UFCW, you’re not going to have a lot of Democrats who want to be your friends), how they address the issue will be important. It’s the difference between a nuanced position that won’t alienate corporate contributors and an all-out attack that will be a bid for support from organized labor.
The question is whether by word or by deed, Wal-Mart will be successful at changing its stripes so that an attack on its corporate practices is merely doing the bidding of labor unions rather than defending working Americans. The success of Wal-Mart’s efforts may not just determine its corporate image but the image of Presidential candidates as well.
January 2nd, 2007
Well, it seems we’ve dropped the ball this summer and haven’t been able to post regularly. We may be scattered across the country, but we haven’t forgotten about Iowa! I only have limited Internet access, but I ran across a few stories today that seem interesting, so I thought I’d put them up some links.
The Register commissioned a poll to find out which likely 2008 presidential candidates Iowans favor. The results are pretty interesting with Edwards taking the lead with 30% support, followed by Clinton with 26%, Kerry with 12%, and our own governor taking only 10%. Needless to say this probably comes as a blow to Vilsack, because if this is the kind of support he has in his own state it doesn’t bode well for gaining support elsewhere. Also, this is the first poll done that doesn’t give Clinton the lead, which could very well be related to the fact that she hasn’t campaigned here since 2003, whereas Edwards has already visited the state at least once this year. Clinton recently changed her position on ethanol, and she now supports funding for research and development, whereas before she was opposed to subsidies. I criticized McCain for this very about-face, and I still think it is an obvious ploy to win support in the caucuses that doesn’t necessarily reflect how a person would act in office. However, Edwards’s lead over Clinton is within the margin of error, and maybe if she actually campaigned in the state she could do really well. Basically this poll shows that Iowa would definitely not be a lock down for Vilsack in the caucuses, so it will be interesting to see how it changes the early campaigning techniques.
Also, there is an interesting article on how the Democrats are reacting to the influence of blogs on politics, and you guys should check it out. Apparently Vilsack doesn’t like being personally attacked by blogs, poor guy.
June 11th, 2006
Legislators will begin investigating the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium tomorrow after top officers were found to have received “excessive” salaries.
State Auditor David Vaudt told the AP that the state may be responsible for repayment to the federal government of $1.8 million.
The agency’s board members say they didn’t know where the money was going, while Des Moines City Councilman Archie Brooks told the Register that a stroke prevented him from taking care of the matter:
“My memory is not what it was. The government knows that. They pay me for it. I lose thought. I lose mind. I lose names. I can’t use that as an excuse. Did I not keep track of the records? Did I not keep a running total on my desk? No. Was I the only person authorized to sign? Yes.”
I don’t even know what to make of all this. A line from Casablanca springs to mind though. We’ll see.
April 4th, 2006
