Search Results for ‘u s constitution’
Tom Latham, despite representing a swing district, has signed on to some rather extreme pieces of legislation in Washington DC this session. Latham has co-sponsored a bill that would gut what remains of the Wagner Act by passing so-called “right-to work” legislation, (HR 697) Many Republicans in the Iowa State House have taken similarly despicable stands. Latham has also signed on to HR 2380. This bill would permanently repeal the estate tax. Apparently, Tom Latham thinks working Iowans don’t pay enough taxes while Paris Hilton is paying far too much.
Latham is supporting other extreme legislation as well, including HR 618, which seeks to undermine Roe v. Wade. It’s clear that Tom Latham supports a far-right wing agenda that is out of touch with what his constituents support. In fact, it’s so far right-wing, it seems even more extreme than Steve King. However, when one considers that the National Journal ranked Latham as even farther from the mainstream than King, it’s not a surprise. One hopes that despite a slow start to fundraising that the eventual nominee for the 4th District is able to defeat an extremist like Tom Latham.
April 26th, 2008
The Drum Major Institute, a progressive think tank that promotes pro-middle class policies, released its congressional scorecard today. All of Iowa’s Democratic incumbents in both the House and Senate got perfect scores from the group. However, the record among Iowa Republicans on Capitol Hill was much poorer. Chuck Grassley voted with middle class families only 67% of time, Tom Latham only 60% of the time and Steve King received a score of only 20%.
While it’s not newsworthy that Dave Loebsack is progressive or that Steve King is far-right wing, it is significant that Boswell is receiving such a high mark from a progressive think tank that boasts such liberal luminaries as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Randi Weingarten, head of the New York City Teachers’ Union, on its board. Although the Fallon campaign has been arguing that Boswell is a “Bush Democrat”, this grade serves to shore up the argument of those who perceive Boswell as a strong progressive for the Third District and undermines the central premise of Fallon’s campaign. If all Fallon can campaign on is that Boswell was pro-war in 2002 and that he raises a lot of money, Fallon won’t have much luck in June.
March 12th, 2008
I know, I live in Iowa, so a defense of the caucuses that comes from me is just going to seem like I’m greedy. I should say that before I moved to Iowa for college four years ago, I shared the opinion that the importance of the caucuses is unjustifiable, and that a national primary would be more democratic. Then I experienced the caucuses (in 2004), and I changed my mind.
Over on MyDD, desmoinesdem published the second part of her diary series, “How the Iowa caucuses work.” She echoes concerns that we brought up here about inequalities in the caucus system based on delegate assignment, demonstrating that it takes more caucus-goers to elect a delegate in precincts with higher concentrations of activist Democrats who have free evenings than in precincts with lower concentrations of said activists. (E.g., it took about 70 caucus-goers to elect one delegate in the Poweshiek County, where I caucused in 2004, while in less-Democratic and less-populous Fremont County, it only took 22 caucus-goers to elect one delegate.)
The conclusion of all of this? The caucus system (according to our own Geraldine) “favors the old over the young, the rural over the urban, Western Iowa over Eastern Iowa.”
Why is this wrong? Well, while the caucus system seems to create inequalities on the surface, it can compensate for deeper inequalities. Many have complained, here and elsewhere, that the Iowa Caucuses are unfair to families with young children, workers who have evening shifts, handicapped persons, and, generally, people with busy schedules, because it requires them to take several hours out of a weekday night to argue with their neighbors about politics. Not everyone can do that, and it’s understandable.
That is why precincts are assigned delegates before caucus night: if a disproportionate number of Democrats in X precinct have to work the night shift or have young children (or even if there’s a blizzard), the system currently in place ensures that their precinct will still be important. And precincts are the smallest geographic unit our election officials recognize for general elections, so it is assumed that others in your precinct likely represent similar interests to yours. Think of it as a much more geographically specific version of the electoral college. (Maybe you have your problems with that system, too, but at least this caucus math has a constitutional precedent.)
Aside from that, though, here’s a question nobody has asked: what is the harm in giving Iowa’s downtrodden rural hamlets and agricultural areas a little attention from the rest of the country every four years? It isn’t like John Edwards is going to spend the last week before the caucuses camped out in Keokuk and Grundy Counties just because each caucus-goer is worth more there. At the end of the day, Keokuk and Grundy still represent a tiny fraction of the total delegates needed to win, and putting on events and doing GOTV work is easier and far more efficient in urban areas like Des Moines and Cedar Rapids.
While disparities in caucus-goer to delegate ratios from county to county may seem a little alarming, the truth is that urban areas are still immensely important, and that a candidate can win the caucuses without putting practically any resources into the less populous half of Iowa’s 99 counties. A campaign will hire more than 10 full-time field organizers for Polk County before they will hire a single full-time organizer for Grundy County. And most importantly, I don’t know a single Iowa Democrat who will argue that Polk County (Des Moines area) Democrats don’t have enough influence on state politics, the state party, or the caucuses.
I hope this will be the start of a series of posts written here as a defense of the Iowa Caucuses. Toward that end, I’m looking for more arguments to respond to. So, dear readers, please participate: What arguments against the Iowa Caucuses do you find most compelling?
March 6th, 2007
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
Although there’s already been one post this week about Steve King being the lead sponsor of the pro-escalation resolution in Congress, it seemed worth mentioning that King is also back beating the English-only drum. King believes that non-English speakers “undermine our cultural continuity.” He has good reason to be concerned. Iowa is a hotbed for one particular foreign language that is destroying American society. Yes, that’s right Iowa has the highest per capita rate of Luxembourgish. It’s good to that Steve King is making sure that these Luxembourger-Americans will fully integrate into American society.
February 18th, 2007
In the most recent addition of Chris Cilizza’s Friday line mentioning Senate seats that might change hands in 2008, Iowa was not mentioned at all while safely Republican states like Nebraska and Mississippi were. Charlie Cook also sees Harkin’s seat as relatively safe, as does Stu Rothenberg.
Although there has been rampant speculation that Steve King might run for Senate, this indicates that even if King does run, the consensus is forming already that Harkin is a shoo-in. This will make it very difficult for any Republican to fundraise until it can be shown that Harkin is vulnerable. If King does run, it would be tilting at windmills, most similar to when Denise Majette gave up her House seat in order to lose a Senate race by 20 points in Georgia in 2004. Although Harkin will never win by the same margins that Chuck Grassley was able to win by when he ran against Art Small of “Think Big, Vote Small” fame, Harkin should be able to coast to a relatively comfortable victory if the political climate stays the same or doesn’t deteriorate too much. After all if you’ve defeated five incumbent Republican members of the U.S. House or Senate, this guy shouldn’t be much of a challenge.
February 16th, 2007
On Thursday, a resolution was introduced that was in full throated support of the President’s escalation in Iraq. It featured 13 Republican co-sponsors with impeccable far-right wing credentials, including genuine nutcases like Bill Sali of Idaho. But the main sponsor of the resolution is the one and only Steve King.
In addition, the Representative from Iowa’s Fifth District has also signed as a co-sponsor (along with obscure Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter) to a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. It’s good to know that Steve King is continuing to introduce and sponsor legislation that has no chance of getting passed. Many people enter politics to make a difference but only a rare few enter it to make pointless symbolic gestures. Steve King has once again shown he’s a proud member of the second catagory.
February 12th, 2007
Iowa Progress has previously profiled a cutthroat Grinnellian, now we turn our attention to a Grinnell alum who has come up with a really dumb idea. Scott Raecker ‘84 is a Republican member of the State Legislature who introduced an amendment in the Iowa House to the anti-bullying bill which recently passed the State Senate. The bill is designed to prevent the real problem of bullying in Iowa’s public schools. How does Raecker’s amendment address the problem of bullying and harassment? It’s designed to protect the most vulnerable people in the state, members of Iowa General Assembly.
While it’s nice to protect such frail and fragile members of society, the amendment, if passed, would create all sorts of issues. If while Scott Raecker was speaking at a campaign event, you shouted “Hey Raecker, the only thing dumber than you is that amendment to the bullying bill you introduced,” and Raeker then stopped speaking, you would be guilty of bullying and harassing. You would have engaged in conduct based on a “mental ability or disability” that would have substantially interfered with Raeker’s “campaign performance.” This only skims the surface of the massive First Amendment issues this amendment would have created. However, there was another issue with the amendment that ultimately prevent its passage. It has nothing to do with bullying in schools.
So why did Scott Raeker introduce this amendment, (which was instantly ruled non-germane)? Because it was designed as a wrecking amendment. If it’s added to the bill, it makes a hash of it. And if it isn’t added, all the Democrats are on record supporting “bullying and harrassing of and by public officials.” The Republicans immediately tried overturn the Speaker’s ruling that the amendment was non germane. Predictably, it failed on a party-line vote.
Although the bill ended up passing the House by a vote of 62-37, it did so after hours of debate and more pointless wrecking amendments introduced by House Republicans. But none were quite as pointless and badly thought out as Scott Raecker’s. Many legislators introduce bills or amendments that are stupid, many others introduce bills or amendments that are unconstitutional. But few can say they’ve ever done as good a job of interweaving those two threads as Scott Raecker did yesterday.
February 8th, 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
Previous Posts
