Search Results for ‘tom harkin’
John Deeth linked to the National Journal’s ranking of all the members of Congress from most liberal to least liberal. What’s interesting is that, despite the big Democratic year in 2006, Iowa’s most liberal congressman got defeated. That title was held by Republican Jim Leach. Leach was one of the last of the liberal Republicans but lost to the much more liberal Dave Loebsack. Although Leach was a liberal Republican, he voted for the Republican leadership and was one of the worst of the Clinton haters in Congress in the mid 1990s (although he probably wasn’t sincere about his Clinton-hating. Instead, he was just unsuccessfully angling for the 1996 Republican nomination for U.S. Senate against Tom Harkin).
But the fact that Leach was the most liberal Congressman from Iowa means that Democrat Leonard Boswell wasn’t. Boswell was only a mere four places behind Leach (although that made him less liberal than one other Republican, Libertarian Ron Paul.) This put Boswell in a three way tie for the 173rd most liberal member of Congress with Artur Davis of Alabama and liberal sweetheart John Murtha. This emphasizes Boswell’s vulnerable position. He represents a swing district, albeit one where the base Democratic voters are relatively liberal (as opposed to many of Boswell’s fellow Blue Dogs from the South). Boswell has to walk a fine line to protect himself from a primary challenge and to retain his appeal in the district in a general election as much of the rural 3rd District is proving increasingly invulnerable to his charms as a rural Democrat from Decatur County. Boswell has walked this tightrope well in the past but as questions about his health and age continue to build, it will become increasingly likely that he will either slip or be pushed.
Finally, it’s worth noting one bit of trivia. The most conservative congressman from Iowa is not Steve King but rather Tom Latham. While King may be nuts, he at least is an independent thinker. Latham accumulated a more conservative record by being a straight party-line, pro-corporate Republican hack. It allows Latham the benefit of a seat on the Appropriations Committee for the small cost of independent thought and free will. One hopes that Selden Spencer will use this information to his advantage for his second bid for the 4th District.
March 4th, 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
We recently did an overview of the top three opportunities for the Democrats to pick up seats in the Iowa State Senate in 2008. Now we’re going to take a look at the three most vulnerable seats that the Democrats have to defend. Although there are only ten Democrats in the State Senate up for re-election in 2008, many of them had close races in 2004 and will face fierce opposition from Republicans who have been pushing an agenda that would deny sick people the possibility of one day being cured, hurt working families and make it more difficult for Iowans to vote. Not exactly a popular combination, although unfortunately it will be a well funded one. Here are the three Democratic Senators who will have the toughest races in 2008:
1. Frank Wood (parts of Clinton and Scott Counties) In 2004, Wood defeated incumbent Republican State Senator Bryan Sievers in a race that was decided by less than 500 votes. Wood’s district comprises most of rural Scott and Clinton Counties and Republicans have an registration advantage of over 1,000 voters in the district. With this registration advantage, his district will be squarely targeted by the Republicans in 2008. His district also comprises the area represented by Elesha Gayman, who won an upset victory over her Republican opponent Jim Van Fossen in 2006, despite not being a targeted candidate. Gayman will have a major bulls eye on her back as Republicans need to win her seat to take back a majority in the Iowa House. The effort against her will help Wood’s Republican opponent as well. The GOP will also be building up its organization in Scott County after Chet Culver won the county by a tremendous margin of 9,000 votes. Even with a strong top of the ticket with Bruce Braley and Tom Harkin, Wood will face a very tough fight in this Republican-leaning district.
2. Tom Hancock (Jones and parts of Delaware and Dubuque Counties) In 2004, Tom Hancock defeated incumbent State Senator Julie Hosch by 122 votes. She had won the seat two years before by less than 500 votes. Hancock’s district comprises all of Jones County, along with rural Dubuque County and the parts of Delaware County that are south and east of Manchester. The district is very competitive, although Democrats have a registration advantage of 1,500 over the Republicans, over 40% of the voters are independents. However, Hancock will be running as an incumbent in 2008 and will have all the advantages of incumbency. Hancock won in 2004 despite running behind John Kerry in Delaware and Jones Counties and a very small advantage in the Democrats’ traditional strength of absentee ballots. Although this race will receive a lot of attention from both parties, a strong organization should put Hancock over the top in a neutral election climate. However, if there’s even a mild Republican lean in 2008, Hancock will be in trouble.
3. Tom Rielly (Keokuk and Poweshiek Counties, parts of Iowa, Mahaska and Tama Counties) Tom Rielly’s district is more Republican than that of any other Democratic State Senator up for election in 2008. However, Rielly has a solid base of support in otherwise heavily Republican Mahaska County (a county that is so Republican that Bill Clinton only received 40% of the vote there in 1996). Excluding absentee ballots, Rielly ran 10 points ahead of John Kerry in Mahaska County in 2004. Rielly also has the advantage of representing Grinnell, which is a strongly Democratic college town with very high student turnout. Poweshiek County, where Grinnell is located, is increasingly Democratic (it was one of three counties in Iowa that Bush won in 2000 and that John Kerry won in 2004). Rielly won the county by 700 votes in 2004 and should improve on that margin in 2008. The rest of the district comprises Keokuk County, which is slightly Republican leaning, though Rielly won it in 2004 and Iowa County (besides Marengo and the area immediately around it) which is a 50/50 county. Like Hancock, Rielly should be fine in a neutral climate but his big strength is a large number of ticket-splitters. If a candidate runs who can energize the Republican base, Rielly will have a hard fight. But if the rumors are true that someone like Danny Carroll will run, Rielly should be fine.
Other Democrats who will face highly competitive challenges in 2008 are: (in alphabetical order) Jeff Danielson (Black Hawk), Gene Fraise (Henry and Lee), Mike Gronstal (Pottawatomie) and Brian Schoenjahn (Buchanan and Clayton and parts of Black Hawk, Delaware and Fayette).
February 20th, 2007
If Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post can already start looking at 2008 US Senate races, we feel like it’s not too soon to start looking at 2008 Iowa Senate races. Today, we’re going to take a look at the top Democratic pickup opportunities. Although the Democrats picked up seats in 2004 to reach a 25-25 tie in the Senate, the Republicans will still be defending 15 seats in 2008, 5 more than the Democrats. Not only will the GOP go into 2008 with more seats to defend, they will be a party that is deeply divided. Nearly half of the Republicans in the State Senate walked out of the leadership election in November. They haven’t become much more unified since. Here are a list of the three most vulnerable seats that the divided Republican caucus will have to defend in 2008:
1. Larry McKibben (Marshall and Hardin Counties). McKibben represents a district that Chet Culver won by nearly 1500 votes in 2006. It consists of Marshall County, a traditionally strong Democratic county and Hardin, a mildly Republican leaning county. In 2004, McKibben edged out the Democratic candidate, Wayne Sawtelle, a labor activist, by less than 800 votes. McKibben owed his victory to piling up a huge lead in Hardin County, despite running significantly behind George Bush in Marshall County. The large labor community in Marshalltown will still be gunning for McKibben in 2008 and McKibben won’t be running on anywhere near as strong a ticket in 2008. With Tom Harkin up for Senate and Selden Spencer making a more serious attempt to run against Tom Latham, McKibben won’t have the advantages he had in 2004. He’s hanging on by a slim thread and this race will probably be decided again by less than 1000 votes.
2. James Hahn (Cedar, most of Muscatine and a little of Johnson counties). Hahn, one of the 8 anti-Lundby Republicans in the State Senate, defeated incumbent Democrat Thomas Fiegen after redistricting in 2004. Fiegen previously only represented the Cedar County part of the district and lost his bid for re-election in the new district by less than 2000 votes. This will be another place where the Democrats will benefit from having a much stronger ticket. The 2004 Democratic candidate for U.S. House, long-shot Dave Franker will be replaced on the ticket by incumbent Representative Dave Loebsack. This means there will be a whole lot more resources available in Muscatine County, a county which isn’t that important in a statewide race but is a crucial swing county in the 2nd Congressional District. John Kerry won Muscatine County in 2004 by 500 votes despite a weak showing statewide. Chet Culver won it by 2000 votes. If the Democratic Presidential nominee has a Chet Culver-like performance in the Presidential and gets 55% of the vote, this seat should go. If Iowa continues to be a tightly contested swing state, it probably won’t.
3. Mary Lundby (Linn) Although Lundby is the Republican leader in the State Senate, she is one of the most moderate members of the Republican Caucus who replaced former leader Stew Iverson in a coup in April 2006. She was also one of two Republican State Senators to oppose an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to ban gay marriage during the last legislative session. Her socially moderate views make her a good fit for a State Senate district that has about 12,000 Democrats, 12,000 Republicans and 17,000 Independents in the suburbs of Cedar Rapids that she won with nearly 60% of the vote in 2004. However, it does not make her a good fit in the Republican Party of Iowa which is dominated by social conservatives. Her only ally in the Republican caucus on the gay marriage issue, Maggie Tinsman, was defeated in the 2006 primary by an extreme right wing organization called Iowans for Tax Relief. She was beaten by a fellow who can best be described as the Steve King of East Iowa, David Hartsuch. Considering that half the Republicans in the State Senate don’t support Lundby, it won’t be a surprise if Iowans for Tax Relief tried to beat Lundby in the primary. If they do, an ultra conservative will be very vulnerable in this moderate seat. The other possibility is that Lundby, a cancer survivor may call it quits. After all, why would anyone in their right mind really want to manage a Senate caucus with a proclivity for sectarian violence that would make an Iraqi province blush? If the seat becomes open, it will become an extremely competitive race and with compartively high costs to run a campaign in the Cedar Rapids media market, it will easily become the most expensive State Senate race in the state. However, if Lundby stays on the nature of the district makes it Republican favored but still competitive. However, the mix of all three possibilities, a Republican primary, retirement and re-election keeps this seat highly competitive.
Other vulnerable Republicans are (in alphabetical order): Jeff Angelo (South-Central Iowa), Jerry Behn (Boone and Dallas Counties), John Putney (Benton, Grundy, Tama and part of Iowa County), Brad Zaun (suburban Polk County) and Mark Ziemann (Allamakee, Chickasaw, Howard and Winneshiek Counties)
February 6th, 2007
Today’s Des Moines Register has this Jane Norman story “Harkin raises money, perhaps to run again” about how Tom Harkin has raised $362,000 in the last quarter of 2006. Aside from wondering why else Tom Harkin would raise money for his Senate account besides a re-election bid, the article points out that “Harkin is doing everything to indicate he will seek re-election in 2008.” Although there were some rumors that he might retire, those have been pretty throughly debunked. The Register’s headline writers should start actually reading the news stories before they write the headline.
January 31st, 2007
In Iowa, presidential candidates are no doubt already scrambling for high-profile endorsements. Since Tom Harkin took the relatively safe route and endorsed the home team very early, I thought it might be interesting to take a look at our Democratic Congressmen in Iowa to see who they might pick.
Of course, the decision of whether to make an endorsement at all is relevant to the discussion. During the 2004 campaign, Leonard Boswell (IA-03) did not make any endorsement, instead remaining neutral and showing up at any major candidate’s campaign stops that he could get to for a bit of extra face time. This year, he might be planning to do the same. He already showed up at Hillary’s event in Des Moines:
Mrs. Clinton was introduced by Representative Leonard Boswell, who drew a huge ovation when he called her “a great first lady,” and then noted that the day had meaning for women in his family and, surely, many women in the audience.
I don’t blame Boswell for remaining neutral, because it may well be in his political interest. But with questions about whether he even plans to run for reelection, it remains to be seen whether he will pick a horse.
In 2004, Bruce Braley (IA-01) was an Edwards activist, as his biography on the DCCC’s site points out. Perhaps he will endorse the fellow trial lawyer again, but so far he seems not to have announced one way or the other. Getting elected to Congress can sometimes change your allegiances, after all.
Dave Loebsack (IA-02), somewhat predictably, was a Deaniac in 04. The bottom of his online CV at Cornell College notes that he was “one of the Linn County coordinators for Howard Dean for President,” and other sources tell us he was a precinct captain. (It’s also worth noting that Loebsack was a Bill Bradley activist in 2000, for whatever that’s worth.) Since Dean isn’t running again, of course, it isn’t clear how this will impact his decision this time around. Either way, if he endorses a candidate, it is likely that it will be someone on the left.
And while I could opine about how Steve King might endorse Tom Tancredo’s TEAM AMERICA, I’m certainly not an expert on such things, so I’ll leave it at the Democrats.
January 27th, 2007
Steve King, who has a reputation as being one of the craziest Congressmen in the House of Representatives, (which is quite an achievement considering his competition) is back and better than ever in the 110th Congress. After previous legislative accomplishments ranging from working to keeping 600,000 American citizens from voting to registering a bold protest against the use of condoms to fight Aids in Africa. Since, obviously, condoms promote AIDS. That’s right, on June 28, 2005, Steve King gave a speech in Congress attacking the establishment of a “condom culture” in Africa. He warned that once you create this “condom culture,” it can lead to “the elimination… of abstinence until marriage and monogamy after that”
So what’s Steve doing now? Well, he’s celebrating the 100 hours by sponsoring a Constitutional Amendment. This isn’t just a run of the mill amendment banning flag burning or making English our nation’s official language, his amendment, HJ 16, would make the Federal Income Tax unconstitutional. This is the type of bold legislation that our nation needs. Most politicians would hesistate to eliminate the income tax in a time of massive budget deficits and a foreign war. They wouldn’t have the zeal or the vision that Steve King has. After all, we didn’t need an income tax the last time we fought and won a unilateral war in the Middle East. We beat the Barbary Pirates with our government funded solely by tariffs. We can beat Al Queda and the Iraqi militias the same way.
So what’s Steve King’s next step once he eliminates the income tax? The word on the street is he’s gunning to run for Senate against Tom Harkin (despite some rumors that Harkin might retire). However, it seems likely that Harkin will run and make Steve King the 6th sitting Republican Congressman he’s defeated. And even Harkin doesn’t run, almost any Democrat should beat King if he runs for Senate. Iowa may have a quirky electorate but Iowans aren’t quirky enough to elect someone who is so clearly deranged to the U.S. Senate.
January 18th, 2007
Buried within this piece on DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer we find that Tom Harkin is mulling retirement: “We have now gotten 11 of the 12 Democrats to commit to running again. [Iowa Sen.] Tom Harkin is still making up his mind,” Schumer said, going on to lavish praise on the 67-year-old Democrat. “He’s a great senator. He does more in a couple of years than many senators have done in a lifetime.”
It’s true — Harkin is one of the best senators and Democrats we’ve got, and I for one, would be sorry to see him go. Fortunately, I don’t think we’ll have to say goodbye just yet. Sure, he’s getting older, but he’ll still be younger than many in the Senate, and even younger than at least one presidential candidate (John “I’m older than dirt” McCain). I saw Harkin twice this past year: once at the Harkin Steak Fry and once in a livingroom in Grinnell as he stumped for now-victorious Eric Palmer; both times he seemed sharp as a blade and perhaps more importantly, like he was really enjoying himself.
Furthermore, 2008 should be a good year for Democrats as they try to expand their lead in the Senate, notes The Hill. Of the 33 seats up for grabs, 21 are held by Republicans so the GOP will be forced to play more defense than offense. Plus, who’s going to challenge Harkin? I bet Jim Nussle would like to, but considering his very solid defeat to Culver (who is not half the candidate Harkin is), I imagine he’ll stay put for now as a consultant. Meanwhile, Harkin’s just picked up a plum committee assignment: Chairman of the Agriculture Committee. According to Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report, “I think Harkin was thinking about it, but now that he has Ag, what’s his incentive to retire?” Answer: There is none.
January 8th, 2007
In the latest must-read political story of the week, Adam Nagourney chronicled Hillary Clinton’s plans for her run for President. However, in the New Hampshire heavy article, one paragraph stood out,
“Mrs. Clinton has less experience with presidential politics in Iowa than in New Hampshire because in 1992, when her husband ran the first time, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa was also seeking the presidential nomination, so other candidates steered clear of the race”
This misses one of the big challenges that Hillary faces. Rogue polls aside, she has next to no traction among Iowa caucusgoers. Vilsack has been Governor for eight years, Edwards still has a formidable base of support left from 2004 and Obama is not only seen as a political rockstar but, as a Senator from Illinois gets local television coverage in much of Eastern Iowa as well. In contrast, Bill Clinton never had to campaign in the Iowa Caucuses and Hillary has no hometown advantage in Iowa.
Hillary will have none of these advantages and right now is clearly running fourth in Iowa. Although she may have a lot of money, media is secondary to field in caucuses and among Democratic activists, all the candidates have high name ID. It’s still early and as Chase pointed out recently, the Iowa Caucuses are still wide open. But, Hillary is clearly starting behind the eight ball and it would not be a surprise if she doesn’t compete in the caucuses at all and tries to build up New Hampshire and South Carolina as firewalls.
January 3rd, 2007
Next Posts
Previous Posts
