Search Results for ‘would like more information’
Although we have addressed our regret about the focus on Ed Fallon’s failings as a candidate and human being that Iowa Progress has been taking (including the post above and below), it is worth doing so again. It was never the intent for this to happen but unfortunately, events have overtaken that intent. Several months ago, the conventional narrative about this election was Democratic activists choosing between pragmatism in the form of Leonard Boswell, a six term moderate incumbent who has consistently won in a marginal Congressional district, and Ed Fallon, a progressive activist with whom many activists were more ideologically in tune but who many worried was too far to the left for the district. This narrative has not held. While Boswell has run an unspectacular, mistake-free, “Rose Garden,” campaign, Fallon has seemingly made every mistake possible save being caught in bed with the proverbial “dead girl or live boy.”
What candidates do effects what is written about them. Leonard Boswell’s campaign has, quite intentionally, done little of note. That leaves little new to write about him. As Iowa’s only Democratic Congressman for 10 years, plenty has already been written about him and getting into the debate about whether Boswell is a “Bush Dog,” or “Blue Dog” or any other kind of canine is quite tiresome and repetitive. At this point, most readers of Iowa Progress and most voters know who Leonard Boswell is for better or worse. Had major ethical issues been raised about Boswell, they would have been covered. Had questions about Boswell’s loyalty to the Democratic Party, they would have been covered. Had Leonard Boswell’s campaign showed major signs of mismanagement, they would have been covered. But all three problems have arisen with Ed Fallon.
The conflict between Fallon’s professed position on campaign finance reform and the actions of his campaign, including I’m For Iowa can only be described for chutzpah. Fallon further dug himself a deeper hole by not just defending himself for paying himself out of campaign funds via the so-called “Fallon Loophole” but attacking attempts to close it as somehow being corrupt as well. His nondisclosure of his I’M for Iowa’s funds is quite unsettling and raises broad questions about what the purpose of the organization is. The refusal to disclose the information created the appearance of guilt, even if none existed, and created an ongoing story that appears to have severely hurt Fallon’s fundraising. The Fallon campaign has also resurrected broader questions about Fallon’s loyalty to the Democratic Party because of his campaign manager’s claim that he was considering a third party run for Governor in 2006. These questions were initially raised because Fallon endorsed Ralph Nader in 2000.
Ed Fallon began the race as a severely flawed candidate and his behavior since announcing his candidacy has done little to inspire any additional confidence in his fitness to serve in the United States Congress. If another Democrat had been running with the same policy positions of Ed Fallon without the personal baggage, Iowa Progress’s coverage would unquestionably have been entirely different. If someone like Frank Cownie or Kevin McCarthy was running against Leonard Boswell (though it’s impossible to imagine a situation where either would challenge Boswell in a primary), we would ended up taking a tone and stance far removed than what we done in the past few months. (Presuming, of course, neither of them would make the host of miscues that Fallon has made.)
While Iowa Progress’s coverage of the 3rd District has been entirely factual and every statement made has been true, it is still clear that some posts have become increasingly snarky and vitriolic. This is highly regrettable. We wish that these posts had been written in a more civilized tone but, we also wish that Ed Fallon had not engaged in the behavior that prompted these posts to be written in the first place.
May 28th, 2008
In an interview with a progressive blog today, Ed Fallon claimed, “We’re doing really well, our own internal polling shows us up.” It’s not a surprise for Fallon to make a claim when the Boswell campaign released its own internal from Anzalone Lizst, the firm that polled for new Democratic Congressmen Don Cazayoux and Travis Childers, that had Boswell receiving 65% of the vote.
This jibes with the KCCI poll that had Boswell winning by a two to one margin. However, Fallon’s campaign finance reports, which show him having only $28,000 on hand the day before he had to meet payroll, does not show him spending any money on pollsters. (Nor does it show him spending on money on television, radio, mail, newspaper advertisements or any other form of paid media) So if Ed Fallon hasn’t hired a pollster and can’t afford to pay one, why does he claim he has internal polling, let alone internal polling that seems at odds with all the other information about this race?
Our guess is that Ed Fallon probably took a survey, not a poll. A survey is unscientific and involves asking a bunch of people without dealing with complicated things like sample size or filtering likely voters. This means that Ed Fallon may actually be ahead according to his “polling”, provided, of course, that a third of the electorate are vegetarians from Sherman Hill and everyone who votes outside Polk County is a member of CCI. Then again, this blog may be given Fallon too much credit for assuming that he merely mistook the difference between a survey and a poll. (Which is covered the second week of Statistics 101).
Fallon has a history of lying and of sleazy behavior. He may have just made up his “internal polling” entirely, which would be a good deal for Fallon. After all, the less he spends on internal polling, the more money he can pay himself.
May 22nd, 2008
Iowa City is holding a referendum on November 6 over whether to continue to allow people aged 19 and 20 to visit bars. Opponents of underage drinking are fighting to pass the referendum, underaged drinkers, specifically University of Iowa students, are getting mobilized to oppose it (as is every bar owner within a mile of the Ped Mall.) Since this is in Iowa, there has already been an obligatory piece wondering about the effect this might have in the caucuses. In an article on Slate, Christopher Beam seems to think that this is good for Barack Obama because students will be registered in time for the caucuses. Beam neglects the two important facts. First and most importantly, Beam doesn’t realize that you can register at the caucuses. In addition, Beam neglects the fact that none of the students will actually be in Iowa City on caucus night and thus the fact that they are registered there is almost totally irrelevant.
However, this does have one small effect for the caucuses. A voter registration form captures a lot of important information including address, telephone number and sometimes email. Provided that this information is added to the voter file, the Obama campaign (and all other caucus campaigns) will be able to contact hundreds more students than they would before (as they would have no way to contact them as they weren’t registered voters). It doesn’t mean that any of the newly registered students will show up for the caucuses either in Iowa City or in their hometown but it is now a lot more likely that a campaign will ask these newly registered students to show up to the caucuses. It helps Obama slightly (presuming that he is the default student candidate in Iowa City) but it is doubtful whether it will help him net more than a handful of extra caucusgoers on caucus night.
October 24th, 2007
From the VOICE people, a blogger meetup tonight:
Legislation to bring full public financing of elections to legislative and statewide races is moving forward in Iowa, please pass this on to any bloggers you think may be interested: Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (CCI) is hosting a blogger meetup tomorrow, Thursday April 11, at 5:30 p.m. CDT at Ritual Cafe at 1301 Locust Street, near 13th St. between Grand & Locust in Des Moines. They will be talking about the Voter Owned Iowa Clean Elections (VOICE) Act that would bring full public financing of statewide and legislative elections to the state.
Iowa bloggers interested in learning more about the VOICE Act, Iowa CCI, and their work are encouraged to attend. If you have any questions or are unable to attend and would like more information, please contact Adam Smith at asmith@publicampaign.org.
To learn more about the VOICE Act, please visit http://www.voterownediowa.org/.
April 12th, 2007
There is an issue in the news right now that is of greatest interest to Iowans. I’m not taking about frontloading the primary schedule, but rather the exponentially increasing role of the internet in campaigns. While it remains to be seen what impact it will have had when this process culminates on January 14, 2008, we have already seen the effect it can have for a candidate. Many have credited YouTube for handing Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) and the Democrats the senate majority, thanks to a video featuring now former Senator George Allen calling a Webb staffer a “macaca.” Facebook and MySpace have also thrown their names into the political arena. While this may get many more people involved in the caucuses, it is increasingly difficult for the rest of us to process such a large volume of information and take the time to make sense of it for ourselves.
A prime example of this is a video entitled “Vote Different.” Posted on YouTube two weeks ago, it has been viewed over 919,000 times. It is a testament to the power of such ad campaigns on the internet. If you haven’t seen it, watch it for yourself.
Upon first glance, you should notice a few things. First is that it is a clever mashup of the famous 1984 Super Bowl ad introducing Apple Macintosh to the computer world. Secondly, it appears to be obvious that it is from the Obama campaign. This is a view that many major sources of news media have advanced. It’s a fair statement. The woman with the hammer has the symbol of Obama’s campaign on her shirt, and at the end of the ad is Obama’s web address.
But something just doesn’t seem right. Why would that particular sound bite be chose? There must be something that gets their message across more efficiently. They show Hillary’s explicit attempt to come across as a regular person, having a “conversation” with each of us individually. Now watch the original. The Macintosh ad speaks of “one people, one will, one resolve, one cause,” and “a garden of pure ideology where each worker may bloom, secure from the pests of any contradictory thoughts,” all coming from a voice that is meant to sound evil. It completely contradicts with Hillary’s explicit statement that “we all need to be part of the discussion,” and “I don’t want people who agree with me.” Themes such as unity, and “one people” are actually coming from the Obama campaign. Also notice the change in contrast between the two, as Hillary is bright white, as opposed to the dark room. The image of the “big brother” is dark, and blends with the dark wall, with a lighter room.
Now consider that the video was posted by someone with the username “ParkRidge47.” It is significant in that Senator Clinton was born in Park Ridge in 1947. It was also posted with the text: “Make up your own mind. Decide for yourself who should be our next president,” very much in line with the Hillary sound bite. So let’s say this actually is from the Clinton campaign. Could the message be that she is trying to create an exchange of ideas to make everyone better off, thus distancing herself from the image of politics that she is associated (i.e. a war of the partisans or even a politics as a competitive sport in which the American people are spectators)?
In the original commercial, the power comes from the irony of the hammer hitting the screen just as the “big brother” says “we will prevail.” In the mashup, the hammer hits Hillary as she says “I want to keep this conversation going until November, 2008.” Also notice that the woman with the Obama symbol is now wearing an ipod, symbolizing that she refuses to take part in Hillary’s conversation, and is then actually stops it suggesting that Obama is the one who wants to end her conversation. As for the reason why 2008 won’t be like “1984,” that is the year that Walter Mondale, running as an unabashed liberal, lost forty-nine of the fifty states in the general election. This suggests that having Hillary on the Democratic ticket would result in a different outcome this time around. This message is made clearer by having Obama associated with the black screen, while Hillary is associated with white.
Both sides have denied responsibility for the mashup, and I personally don’t subscribe to either view. We just don’t know, and can’t say for sure where this ad came from. My point is that not everything will be as it appears this campaign season. We must all take a closer look at everything we see and form our own opinions. It’s not an easy job, but it is our responsibility to do so.
March 21st, 2007
Here’s a prediction: Hillary Clinton is going to lose the Iowa caucuses. Perhaps very badly. And it’s because she is still fumbling on Iraq.
In perhaps her most forceful statement on the issue, Clinton told DNC members on Friday: “If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war… If we in Congress don’t end this war by January of 2009, as president, I will.”
But according to a survey (pdf) done by The Politico (via MyDD), she does not regret casting her 2002 vote in favor of the war. This is a very tricky line to walk: As president, she would not have been for war, but as senator she would be? Isn’t there a singular responsibility as an elected official to do what’s best for her country, regardless of title? I’m sorry, but this is straight out of a 2004 John Kerry campaign.
MyDD’s Chris Bowers notes that Clinton is trying to pull a Joe Lieberman: appear anti-war to accrue Democratic votes, but maintain support for the war in reality. It worked in Connecticut, he says, because “low information voters just won’t know the difference.” Unfortunately for Clinton, Iowa caucus-goers are hardly low information voters. They brave the sleet and snow in order to stand — sometimes for hours — in crowded high school gymnasiums. And they sure as hell know where the candidates stand.
They also, sure as hell, oppose the Iraq War. The AP reported yesterday that the Iraq War is the number one issue for Iowa voters and that Iowa Democrats are overwhelmingly against it: 86 percent of Iowa Dems said the war wasn’t worth it and 76 percent favored at least the beginnings of withdrawal. According to Former Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Dave Nagle, “Anybody who tries to toe-step around it is going to have a real problem.”
At the moment, it looks like Hillary Clinton fits that anybody description pretty well. Despite a recent ARG poll that had her in the lead, every other poll coming out of the Hawkeye State has shown her down, behind Edwards, Obama, and sometimes even Vilsack. The fact of the matter is, the more people get to know her, the more they will get to know her views on Iraq. Which is why it looks like Iowa Dems will be looking for somebody else.
February 6th, 2007
On Thursday my esteemed colleague, Geraldine, posted about the new website IDP launched, Stop GOP Smear. I have to say though, Geraldine, I think that you’re letting the IDP off pretty easy. For starters, the site looks like it was designed by a 10-year-old. While it may be a good idea to have such a website to provide a centralized location where people can report smear campaigning, I seriously question the point of putting up such an unprofessional site.
Furthermore, I think that it is indicative of a general trend in campaigns this year that I find uninspiring and misdirected. I think attacking a campaign for ‘going negative’ completely misses the point. It is a fine line to walk between correcting fallacious information on an opponent’s mailer and using the fact that they sent the mailer as an attack on the character of the opponent. I don’t think either party has found that line yet. There are more effective ways to respond to negative mailers than to whine about the fact that a negative mailer was sent out.
I am not saying that I support negative campaigning; I don’t. But, I just don’t see the point of making your opponent’s negative campaign tactics a talking point of your campaign. I would rather see candidates contrasting their views and records with those of their opponents than resorting to a juvenile ‘he started it’ ‘no, he started it’ exchange, such as the one we witnessed in the gubernatorial debate on Monday. It is especially hypocritical when there are smear mailers and ads against both candidates. Can’t candidates find a way to criticize their opponents without criticizing them for being critical?
In short, Geraldine, I hope that in the future you will be a little more discerning in your choice of websites to frequent.
October 8th, 2006
When we contacted the three campaigns about conducting these interviews, the Fallon campaign was the first to respond. And they forwarded our questions on to not one, but three staffers: Volunteer Coordinator Rob Sand, Canvass Director Christina Jens, and Grassroots Organizer Adam Mason. And, while it made my job editing and compiling a little more complicated, I’m not complaining, because this interview, like the others, provides some pretty interesting reading.
IowaProgress: How did you get involved in politics?
Rob Sand: I was much more active with skateboarding at the beginning of high school than anything in politics beyond reading the newspaper. I didn’t feel like I could have much of an impact.
After my friends and I kept getting kicked out of skate spots, though, I got pissed and decided to start a campaign to get Decorah (my hometown) to build a public skatepark. It took nearly 2 years, and by the time the concrete was poured I had quit skating (too busy with the project), graduated high school, and left town. But the project taught me that one person can make a difference- I don’t think its cool for many in our cynical generation to think that, but I do. The skatepark made politics/public affairs my passion, and that’s why I’m working for Ed.
Christina Jens: My family’s always been politically aware. It was a common topic of conversation at the dinner table growing up. I fell into organizing in my last year of college. I unintentionally found myself heading up one of the student organizations at Iowa State, and the following summer also fell into a job canvassing with the State PIRGs. Much to my simultaneous joy and dismay, I discovered that I loved it.
Adam Mason: Studied Political Science, had early goals of being Diplomat, Foreign service ambitions. Became disenchanted with the system. Worked odd jobs from retail management to construction to janitor to hotel mgmt. Always found myself staying up to date on issues, world politics especially, Dc politics… Started reading about this Ed Fallon Guy in early 2005, liked wht he was saying, and started volunteering. A position to Organize came open in the Summer of 2005, and although I had no official political experience, was brought on and have been learning it, loving it, and hopefully accomplishing it.
IP: What do you do in off years when there aren’t elections? (Or what did you do before you joined this campaign?)
RS: I graduated college in December, took a graduation celebration vacation in January, and started here in February. Most folks I know switch between policy and campaign work depending on the year, or do consulting for other campaigns (school board, bond issues, voter referendum). Also, there’s always organizing for next year!
CJ: I spent 5 years canvassing and directing canvass operations for non-profit organizations around the country. I decided to come back to Iowa a year and half ago and worked providing technical support for customers of a local ISP. At the beginning of the year I decided I needed to get back in to organizing, and volunteered on a local school referendum campaign, and worked a couple temp jobs before joining the Fallon for Governor staff. After this election season, I plan to stay active in politics; the capacity is yet to be determined.
AM: See above, but also: As this is my first campaign, I hope to be involved with an Ed Fallon administration. 2008 Presidential Candidates will probably be beginning soon after this November’s elections- as much as I hate to think about it. (So much talk about them already) and I would love an opportunity to continue working for Candidates I believe in (Russ Feingold) I would also consider the not-for-profit arena as a way to work along issue lines to continue helping people. (Social Justice, Clean Elections, Living Wage…)
IP: In this gubernatorial election, the candidates are using the internet a lot more than they did last time around. What role do you think the internet (both your campaign sites and online news outlets and blogs) will play in this election? In what ways has the internet changed Iowa political campaigning?
RS: The internet far surpasses any other tool for organizing and communication. It allows campaigns to organize and communicate with supporters, and allow supporters to organize and communicate amongst themselves. I think the sense of ownership the web provides citizens over the campaign is unparalled as a tool for getting volunteers and supporters to get more and more involved, and its the work those supporters do that can make the difference.
I think blogs are journalism’s last best hope, outside of a president with the intestinal fortitude to break up the media monopolies. Corporate media ownership demands returns for shareholders and reporting the news takes second place to that. Tough, investigative journalism- the kind we really need- demands too many resources and gives small returns, so our media quality is suffering. You can find a lot of stories breaking on blogs today. Even though few people read them, reporters are among their readers. So those investigations by “citizen reporters” usually end up making the papers and shaping the media agenda.
I honestly think any candidate that ignores what is being said in the blogosphere and power of the web is a losing candidate.
AM: It is very interesting to watch conversations in online communities. They are more lasting than just a speech or conversation, and therefore have the potential to reach more voters, and influence/involve that many more opinions. We have also seen the rise of online fundraising in the last few election cycles. As PAC’s continue to hold successful online fund drive’s, we see that this is a tool not to underestimate. I am not sure that the internet is revolutionizing the Iowa political climate, as many of the state’s voters are those that are slowest to embrace technology. However, as technology becomes more integrated, I look for the internet’s role to evolve. That being said, for those that do embrace technology, we must try and offer a campaign site that is exciting, interactive, and accessible. It is also beneficial to monitor and participate in blogs to share ideas and information.
IP: What role do you think students (should) play in Iowa politics?
RS: Its a cliched Catch-22 that politicians don’t listen to young people because they don’t vote, and young people don’t vote because politicians don’t listen. The last place to look for the instigation of major change is elected officials, so I think its up to us. Our generation needs to get off our asses and demand that there be a better situation for ourselves as adults and for our kids when they come around. 15% of us are doing a damn fine job, but at some point we have to stop talking to ourselves and get out there to engage our politically disengaged peers- but without sounding holier-than-thou or preachy. Blogging helps, talking to friends helps, organizing helps more. Sorry to offer a lot of bland platitudes…
CJ: An active one.
AM: Students have a long history of doing the “grunt work” of campaigning. They are the quickest and most willing to jump at opportunities Canvassing, phone banking, and in general just volunteering. As well they should, the decisions that are being made now in statehouses and in Washington will affect them for many many years to come. By becoming informed and active, they help ensure spirited debate, active campaigns, and voter participation.
IP: Iowa has a mix of urban voters and rural voters. Is it difficult to account for both groups in crafting your message?
RS, CJ, AM: It may be for some candidates. Ed Fallon has a common sense message that appeals to voters from all backgrounds. While he’s from Des Moines, he’s also served on the Agriculture Committee and is familiar with issues that affect all Iowans.
IP: (Specific for Fallon campaign) Your campaign has refused to take money from PACs (and has refused some other traditional forms of political contributions). Some have predicted that Nussle will have a record amount of cash for the general election. How will you deal with that inequality if yours is the campaign that wins the primary?
RS, CJ, AM: Ed Fallon has a long history of winning campaigns where he’s been outspent. We will address the issue through continuing to build our grassroots support and talking about the need to address the way that political campaigns are financed. We’re the only campaign that can provide a clear contrast to Nussle in this regard.
IP: Why is your campaign the best suited to beat Nussle?
RS, CJ, AM: We provide the clearest contrast to Nussle. Ed Fallon will continue to advocate for responsible land use, ensuring that all Iowans have access to healthcare, adequately funding out education system, and ensuring that our state’s government is accountable to Iowans, not to corporate sponsors.
IP: Do you have a funny anecdote you’d like to share? Or anything else to add?
RS: Anyone who’s ever canvassed for a job can tell you unbelievable stories. My favorite is the Balitmore, MD senior citizen who stepped out from him front door after I knocked on it and offered a fight with, “Just try me, boy!” while his wife chided him from inside. The 80-year-old man who answered in just bikini briefs was interesting too; I held my clipboard in the perfect position to block… things. Canvass: its the best job you’ll ever have.
May 3rd, 2006
We recently invited staffers from the Fallon, Culver, and Blouin campaigns to participate in email interviews about working in Iowa politics and about their campaigns. We were interested, first, in seeing which campaigns would even agree to do it. Luckily, all three consented.
From the Mike Blouin campaign, Matt Paul answered our questions. Matt is from Cedar Rapids, and he’s Blouin’s campaign manager. Here’s what he had to say.
IowaProgress: How did you get involved in politics?
Matt: My first political job was in the Mayor’s Office in Cedar Rapids, my hometown, when I was 24.
IP: What do you do in off years when there aren’t elections? (Or
what did you do before you joined this campaign?)
Matt: I worked in Governor Vilsack’s office for seven years. Before working in politics, I worked as a reporter.
IP: In this gubernatorial election, the candidates are using the internet a lot more than they did last time around. What role do you think the internet (both your campaign sites and online news outlets and blogs) will play in this election? In what ways has the internet changed Iowa political campaigning?
Matt: Like all political communication, applications for the internet and electronic media constantly change. Nothing is more vital than a clear message–no matter the outlet. The internet will continue to provide voters the chance to seek out information on their own, to research topics important to them and to create new methods to receive information during an election cycle.
IP: What role do you think students (should) play in Iowa politics?
Matt: Students in Iowa have such an advantage to engage in the political process because of their ability to access the Iowa caucuses. Since Iowa is also a relatively low cost media market, students get to see the important role retail politics play. I think our party does an excellent job of seeking the input and active participation of students and that should absolutely continue. Since Iowa is an aging state, its critical that students stay involved in the process and active in the party so younger voices continue to be heard. We have to make more progress in keeping young people here and making sure our communities give them a reason to stay.
IP: Iowa has a mix of urban voters and rural voters. Is it difficult
to account for both groups in crafting your message?
Matt: No. Iowa needs to grow and that means creating economic opportunity in all parts of the state and remaining committed to growth that embraces diversity and gives local communities the flexibility to chart their own course.
IP: (Campaign-specific question) How involved were you in choosing Dr. McGuire as running-mate? How do you respond to criticism that the choice was made for political reasons (McGuire is pro-choice)?
Matt: I was involved but the decision was ultimately Mike’s to make. Dr. McGuire was selected for one simple reason: she is qualified. Not only is she a medical doctor, she also holds a MBA and has been involved in a number of community organizations serving women and children. She is pro-choice but her selection was based upon her qualifications.
IP: Why is your campaign the best suited to beat Nussle?
Mike has the right experience, vision and ability to lead Iowa forward. He is the only candidate in the race with a strong record of job creation and his unequaled support from legislators is a clear sign that he could bring the statehouse together and make historic progress for all Iowans.
IP: Do you have a funny anecdote you’d like to share? Or anything else to add?
Matt: This is the first time I have ever submitted a blog entry. I suddenly feel very old.
April 27th, 2006
Tonight at 7, Mike Blouin sat down to chat with Grinnell students for about an hour in the Loose dorm lounge. It had a smaller attendance than yesterday’s Fallon event, but that made for a more personal atmosphere. We formed a circle in Loose lounge’s mismatched, anachronistic armchairs and spoke pretty candidly about politics and college antics. (Thankfully, Hannah and I got to Loose early enough to tuck away the empty 30 racks of Natty Light before Mike arrived…) Read more after the jump.
Blouin was the candidate you’d least suspect would command the interest of an audience of college kids. Of the three candidates, he’s the oldest, and he has been cast — perhaps undeservedly — as an “establishment candidate”; so that’s not quite Grinnell material.
But Blouin engaged us. His demeanor was something between professorial and “quirky uncle,” and it worked. I know my opinion of him changed because of the event. Here are some interesting morsels:
Blouin began his speech with a very strong position in favor of a clean elections law. His language was surprisingly firm and insistent. Money, he said, was his biggest complaint about what has changed in Iowa since he got involved in politics.
He also gave us a brief biography. He went to Loras (at age 16), decided to settle in Iowa, got married, became a teacher (as did his wife), got elected to the legislature and was fired for it, had a child with his wife who had been fired for getting pregnant, had to live on a legislator’s salary alone, and worked his way up to being in charge of economic growth (and job creation) in Iowa. He resigned from his job working for Vilsack to run for governor, and he did it early so that there wouldn’t be any question of his objectivity.
Blouin also talked about his plan for government-sponsored health insurance. No one asked him to clarify, but it sounded a lot like Kerry’s plan (something short of “universal,” but still “universally accessible”). Andy McGuire has been the point-person on this, and she has served both with doctors (as a medical expert and researcher) and insurance companies, so she really knows the health insurance system, etc.
The second half is critical of Nussle:
He criticizes Nussle’s oversight of our deficit, but he drives it home by relating it to government services (education and health care).
Q&A:
On giving companies tax breaks to draw them to Iowa:
“I’d be a hypocrite if I said we should never do it. In the ideal, I wouldn’t do it ever. In the ideal world, you wouldn’t have to. In the ideal world, states wouldn’t be giving away their tax breaks in competition with each other… The trouble is we live in a very real world… And until the courts — I say the courts because Congress will never do this — find a way to stop it, we’ve gotta compete…we’ll lose the opportunity to keep our young people.”
He then talks about how our education is great, but people come here for education and then leave, and that’s something he wants to discourage.
He then talks about how the jobs he brought to Iowa had a lot of benefits. The tax breaks he gave businesses came with a lot of requirements, including pay that was above average per capita income in the state, guarantees that they’d stay, etc. In the cases when we didn’t keep businesses here, it was because other states (e.g., South Carolina) gave away unreasonably huge rewards to companies. So Blouin is in favor of tax breaks with guarantees like that.
Eric asked about Iowa’s food deficit (we import 85% of our food):
Blouin deconstructs the statistic and said that it involved seasons, etc. He also said that promoting organic farming (which is mostly for human consumption) will improve that situation.
On my question about abortion:
He states his position (here on his web site) pretty persuasively. I usually get annoyed by the “I’m pro-life personally but not politically” politicians but Blouin wasn’t annoying. He gives concrete examples of the (strategically) liberal programs he’d support to reduce abortions while still honoring his promise to maintain the right to choose. And, finally, he deflects potential criticism for his 1970s votes for a ban on abortion by explaining, “Now it’s taken me years to get to [this] point, but I’m comfortable.”
So then I asked if he’d support laws like the requirements that abortion clinics provide information to pregnant women about the pain their fetus will feel or about adoption services, and he said, unequivocally, that he will not sign any bill that would affect abortion on either side of the issue. He claims, to explain why his pro-life position is actually more effective than Nussle’s, “Republicans want an issue. I want a solution.”
On Alec’s question about the “WalMart laws”:
He likes them, but he needs a democratic legislature.
“I think there’s something seriously wrong with a corporate mindset that hires people at low wages, condemns government giveaways, and calls their employees together to explain how they, as employees of WalMart, can go get Medicaid services. Yeah, it oughta be illegal.”
And he says Eric Palmer is a great candidate who could help change the balance in the legislature.
On Alec’s question about requiring health insurance by law (like Massachusetts):
“To mandate people to buy something they can’t afford to pay for, in itself doesn’t work. You’ve gotta make sure that you’ve got a product — a basic product — that’s affordable for everyone. I want to see how it works in Massachusetts, and I think we can get a pretty good read in a couple of years.”
He goes on to talk about Andy McGuire’s medical qualifications. And then he gives a pretty detailed account of what improvements he wants to make. And he proposes “bridge health insurance” for recent college graduates if they are looking for jobs in Iowa.
He also talks about how he wants to bring down pharmaceutical costs. He wants transparency in drug pricing, but it’ll take creativity to make it constitutional. He thinks he has a solution (by asking for transparency only for drugs that the state buys directly).
On Hannah’s question on McGuire’s donations to Republicans:
Greg Ganske, who unseated Neal Smith, was also McGuire’s neighbor, which explains her donation.
Jim Nussle was her brother’s neighbor, so she donated to one of his early congressional campaigns. But,
“When he abandoned the value system he said he had, she and [her husband] dropped him. 35% of Iowans are Democrats. You’ve got to get to 51%. You’ve gotta reach out to Independents and progressive Republicans who are scared to death of the Nussle/Vanderplaats ticket, and Andy can do it.”
Then a jab at Ed Fallon (although not mentioned by name):
“You know we’ve got another candidate in this race who publicly endorsed Ralph Nader in the 2000 general election against Al Gore. Helped bring us George Bush. And who, through his organization, endorsed a couple of incumbent Republicans in the legislature. That’s what he did. That was then. This is today. And he’s a very competent guy, and he’s got a right to run. I don’t think you can bash him for it… He probably wished he hadn’t done it back then…”
On Eric’s question on whether Blouin would raise taxes to increase teacher pay:
“I don’t think we have to raise taxes to do it.”
He talks about the need to improve pay for teachers, nurses, and day care providers.
All in all, it was an interesting event. I wish more students had made it out.
Oh! And, on his way out, he made a joke about how blogs can be scary. Boo!
April 23rd, 2006
