2006 Elections archive at Political Forecast

« Older

Loading Newer »

Less

Excerpts Headlines Full Length

Archive for the '2006 Elections' Category

This is how it happened

Published by

Chris Woods

September 14, 2007 in 2006 Elections, 2008 Elections, Biden, Caucuses, Democrats, Iowa Legislature and Iowa politics. 2 Comments

An enterprising reader sent me an email this morning offering his explanation as to Sen. Joe Biden’s ability to rack up the endorsement of every member of the Iowa House Democratic leadership. And it makes sense. In short:

“Hillary, Edwards, and Obama all had PACs but did not focus on candidates or “Funds” for State Legislatures. They focused on members of Congress. Richardson has no PAC.

Perhaps with the fact that Biden was in Iowa last year campaigning for Iowa Democrats not just Federal Candidates but also Legislative candidates.

Could you say that Biden has cultivated relationships with the House Leadership for a long time?”

The reader went through OpenSecrets.org and provided a nice detailed listing of how Biden’s Unite Our States PAC donated several thousand dollars to Iowa House Democrats and their fund. Here are a few of the details:

House Truman Fund, Des Moines, IA $15,000 9/19/2006 Contribution
Senate Majority Fund (IA), Des Moines, IA $15,000 9/19/2006 Contribution
Senate Majority Fund (IA), Des Moines, IA $10,000 10/26/2006 Contribution
House Truman Fund, Des Moines, IA $9,000 10/26/2006 Contribution
People for Beall, Fort Dodge, IA $1,000 10/31/2006 Contribution
Committee to Elect Moritz, Davenport, IA $500 9/19/2006 Contribution
Dorris Kelly for Iowa House, Waterloo, IA $500 10/18/2006 Contribution
John Whitaker for House, Hillsboro, IA $500 10/18/2006 Contribution
Nathan Reichert for House, Muscatine, IA $500 10/18/2006 Contribution

Of the $88,000 that Biden gave to Democrats in Iowa, some $49,000 went to Democrats in the Iowa legislature. Only $3000 went to candidates directly. The $49,000 that Biden gave to the overall legislative funds let the leadership pick and choose which candidates to give that money to in hopes of building their majority–and they succeeded. The reader also offered this somewhat cynical comment after detailing the money:

“If you notice Whitaker and Kelley have already endorsed Biden. Is Sen. Beall and Rep. Reichert next?”

I suppose that might a logical conclusion, but the $500 might be pretty meager in the grand scheme of things. Whitaker raised $37,740 total. Biden’s $500 represents about 1.3% of his total raised. Kelley raised $260,326 so Biden’s $500 is even less important at .19% of her total. Sen. Beall raised $162,658, again making Biden’s $500 pretty meager. Finally, Reichert raised $208,228 which also makes Biden’s small contribution meager at best. Nothing that would make me feel “indebted” enough to endorse him.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd did something similar, which the enterprising reader also documented.

Iowa House Truman Fund, Des Moines, IA $5,000 9/8/2006 Non Federal Contribution
Iowa House Truman Fund, Des Moines, IA $5,000 10/23/2006 Nonfederal Contribution
Iowa Senate Majority Fund, Des Moines, IA $5,000 9/8/2006 Non Federal Contribution
Iowa Senate Majority Fund, Des Moines, IA $5,000 10/23/2006 Nonfederal Contribution

The only other non-federal account or candidate Dodd gave money to was John Mauro’s campaign for Polk County Supervisor and Denise O’Brien’s run for Secretary of Agriculture. Oh, and I guess he gave some $50k to the IDP for the voter file (which is actually VAN access, as the voter file is picked up at the Secretary of State’s office).

Now, to my knowledge, Dodd has only picked up one legislature endorsement and that was Senate President Pro-Tem Jeff Danielson, who himself is a firefighter and Dodd did receive the endorsement of the International Association of Fire Firefighters and the Iowa Fire Fighters making that less surprising.

I would surmise from this data that while making contributions to the state level from leadership and other types of PACs may be beneficial but it still doesn’t mean (or guarantee) that you’ll lock up endorsements from state legislators or other candidates. Look at the amount of support that Hillary Clinton already has from state legislators and the reader even indicates that she didn’t campaign for or give cash to them in their 2006 efforts. Props to candidates who did come into Iowa and campaign for our state reps. and other officials, and even those who financially supported their efforts.

But it seems clear that Biden isn’t necessarily just cynically “buying” endorsements from state legislators but proving he’s committed to a Democratic majority in Iowa and other states, even if he does get some kind of incentive type of effect through their support in the caucuses.

And it is important to remember that legislator endorsements don’t necessarily translate to winning, so Biden’s got a lot more work ahead of him.

Thanks for the nomination

Published by

Chris Woods

June 12, 2007 in 2006 Elections, Blogs, Democrats, Iowa politics and Site stuff. 0 Comments

I was just perusing links for the site today and I happened to find out that Political Forecast has been nominated for the Koufax Award for Best Coverage of State or Local Issues in 2006. I’m not sure who nominated me, or what prompted them to, but I really appreciate the nomination.

You can see the list of other nominees here. Voting has yet to begin, but I’ll make sure you let all of you readers know when you can go vote.

If you want to know more about the Koufax Awards, click here. And here is a simple and brief description:

“The Koufax Awards are named for Sandy Koufax, one of the greatest left handed pitchers of all time. They are intended to honor the best blogs and bloggers of the left. At the core, the Koufax Awards are meant to be an opportunity to say nice things about your favorite bloggers and to provide a bit of recognition for the folks who provide us with daily information, insight, and entertainment. The awards are supposed to be fun for us and fun for you.”

Thanks again, I’m very humbled.

Arnold Takes on Rush, or, Arnold for President? (Just Kidding)

Published by

Nate Koppel

March 22, 2007 in 2006 Elections, Democrats, Election 2006, Justice with Nate Koppel, North America and Republicans. 0 Comments

Reading CNN.com last night, I saw an interesting headline: “Schwarzenegger to Limbaugh: I’m not selling out” Curious, I clicked.

The synopsis? Rush: Arnold is a “closet liberal.” “Why are you selling out instead of being the true conservative you are?” Schwarzenegger: “”I’m the people’s servant of California.” “It’s just doing work for the people. … I can understand where you’re coming from ideologically, but when I became governor, I became the people’s governor.” He also called Rush “irrelevent.”

Few things have made me smile like reading that. I spent a few days in northern California this past week, and it certainly is a curious state. I don’t feel like I can say much about how it is compared to any previous state of California (no pun intended)–this was my first visit. Nonetheless, it seems like a pretty great state, or at the very least, one that is doing fairly well.

I must admit, I’m growing to like Arnold. My brother Alex, a pretty staunch Democrat and denizen of the Bay Area, told me he would undoubtedly vote for Arnold for a third term if he could run again. It seems that Arnold’s success is well deserved–his rhetoric matches his record. It’s refreshing to see a Republican governor support stem cell research, support a minimum wage of $8.00, as Rush notes (which may be a bit low for living in California, but you do what you can,) and fighting global warming, among other things.

Certainly, Arnold has the popular support of a pretty solidly Democratic state. In 2004, California reelected Barbara Boxer by a margin of about 20 points. Diane Feinstein, the state’s other Democratic Senator, won reelection in 2006 with a margin of over 24 points. And the Governator? Won with 55%, and a margin of nearly 17 points.

Now, any good liberal can probably find a thousand reasons not to like Arnold. And that’s okay. But politics is about compromise, and I think few governors have learned to compromise (you know you’ve done a good job when nobody’s happy) like Arnold. And it’s hard not to like the man for at least that. Success in politics is 25% good policy, I think, and 75% good public relations (”spin.”) Arnold’s definitely got both covered.

So, Schwarzenegger for president? Probably not–we’re definitely too lazy for any sort of constitutional amendment. But it’s an interesting thought.

Making a difference

Published by

Chris Woods

February 15, 2007 in 2006 Elections, Democrats, Iowa Legislature, Iowa politics, Media and Republicans. 2 Comments

Go read this Iowa Progress post. Danny Carroll originally blamed the Grinnell College Democrats for his loss in HD-375, where Eric Palmer beat him in a re-match from 2004. Then Joshua Green sat down with him and helped blame gay people. And Danny Carroll believed him and bought the idea that it was a national gay conspiracy to make him lose. I guess that makes me glad Carroll lost but it makes we worry about what comes across as journalism these days, especially in The Atlantic magazine.

At least we can admit that College Democrats made a difference, particularly in local races like this.

Check out the Ames Progressive

Published by

Chris Woods

February 14, 2007 in 2006 Elections, Agriculture, Democrats, Fundraising and Iowa politics. 2 Comments

Former Iowa liberal blogger and ISU student Gavin Aronsen is one of the writers for a new bi-weekly newsletter in Ames, called the Ames Progressive. It looks to be quite the endeavor but also quite interesting. His interview this week is with 2006 Democratic Secretary of Agriculture candidate Denise O’Brien, talking to her about the race and her thoughts on it. As most of us in the blogosphere know, the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation essentially helped buy the election for Bill Northey, and Denise recognizes that:

“Gavin Aronsen (G.A.):You narrowly lost the race for Secretary of Agriculture last November. In a climate that was so forgiving to Democratic candidates, what does this result mean for the progressive movement in Iowa?

Denise O’Brien (D.O.):People have told me, have been very, very supportive of what I did, saying that it wasn’t a loss, that it was a real gain. And, so, even though I only lost by two percentage points – and if you figure it out I lost by 13,000 votes – one of the reasons that I lost what that the Farm Bureau insurance company was able to raise a lot of money to spend. They did not want me elected as secretary of agriculture.

So, I guess I would say that where it puts the progressive movement on notice is that we have a lot of work to do about campaign reform and clean campaigns. I was just really upset, and they did some keeping stuff to the last 72 hours that we were unable to respond to.”

At the end of the interview, Gavin asks her about other important legislative issues to her, and of course she notes local control but it is clear throughout her piece just how important campaign finance reform is, particularly Pam Jochum’s efforts right now. Without a doubt, I expect campaign finance reform in Iowa to become one of the dominant progressive messages by the next campaign cycle.

Cost per vote in Iowa

Published by

Chris Woods

January 31, 2007 in 2006 Elections, 2008 Elections, Boswell, Leonard, Braley, Congress, Democrats, IA-01, IA-02, IA-03, IA-04, IA-05, Iowa politics, Lamberti, Jeff and Republicans. 2 Comments

The National Journal has a good story available online today called “The Value of a Vote” that discussed the importance of money in politics, particularly in the 2006 midterm elections and how expenditures impacted the electorate. It doesn’t necessarily reach any conclusions about self-funded candidates or the viability of candidates who spend more money or less, but I’ve crunched some numbers and here is the cost per vote for each congressional race in Iowa from 2006.

The amounts are generated by taking the amount of candidate dispersements and divide that number by the total number of votes received. The winner is listed first.

IA-01
Braley: $19.65
Whalen: $26.66

IA-02
Loebsack: $4.56
Leach: $5.26

IA-03
Boswell: $17.97
Lamberti: $19.28

IA-04
Latham: $9.06
Spencer: $5.13

IA-05
King: $5.35
Schulte: $1.14
Nielsen: $18.38

I included Roy Nielsen in the results from the 5th CD because he was able to garner 5% of the vote. However, if you remove $138,000 personal loan (which presently stands at $135,500) that Nielsen provided his campaign from his expenditures, he only spent $1.75 per voter. It is also important to keep in mind that outside interest group spending, as well as party independent expenditures, are not included in these totals. In my case study of the IA-03, using all of the totals available to the FEC, I was able to calculate that the average spent per voter by Boswell, Lamberti, the DCCC, the NRCC, and other groups was about $26.64. That didn’t even include figures from the sketchy EFF mailings, TV, and radio ads that were played in the district.

Clearly, at least in Iowa, it seems that the competitive races all watched the candidate spending more per voter end up losing. In the non-competitive races (IA-04 and IA-05), the significant spending per voter undoubtedly helped yield the result that gave the districts back to Latham and King, respectively. By spending $4 more per voter in both the IA-04 and IA-05, Latham and King were able to beat their opponents by 14% and 22% respectively. One conclusion, then, is that if more money had been available to either Spencer or King, then the races could have been even more competitive. The IA-04, at least in 2006, had a very slight Democratic advantage in the PVI, meaning that in 2008 with a strong Democratic candidate, Selden Spencer holds a legitimate shot at being able to take on incumbent Tom Latham and be successful — if he gets the necessary monetary help. Not to mention the fact that he’ll have the advantage of having already been through one race against Latham.

UPDATE: Just for clarity’s sake, I used Political Money Line for the expenditure totals and the CNN Election 2006 results page for the number of votes.

IA-02: Loebsack and the Iraq War

Published by

Chris Woods

January 8, 2007 in 2006 Elections, Congress, Democrats, IA-02, Iowa politics and Iraq. 2 Comments

Kyle brought to my attention today this post from an Iowa blog called Popular Progressive entitled “Who did we elect?” The subject of the post is newly sworn-in Congressman Dave Loebsack and his articulation of his position on the war in Iraq. Gark, the author of the blog, posts two brief passages. The first is from the campaign site of Loebsack explaining his position and the second is a passage from an AP story (from MSNBC) about how he would vote on supplemental spending bills. He tries to frame it as a before and after situation where Loebsack has changed his position. I don’t see it that way, but Kyle and Gark both seem to see it as a walk back to the middle.

From my understanding of what Loebsack said during the campaign and what he’s saying now, it is remarkably similar to the message that Speaker Pelosi is giving. She said this yesterday on CBS’ Face the Nation:

SCHIEFFER: So, you’ve told him what you don’t want to do, and that is to expand the size of the force in Iraq even on a short-term basis. But what if he decides to do that? What will be your action then?

PELOSI: If the president chooses to escalate the war, in his budget request we want to see a distinction between what is there to support the troops who are there now. The American people and the Congress support those troops. We will not abandon them.

But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it. And this is new for him because up until now the Republican Congress has given him a blank check with no oversight, no standards, no conditions. And we’ve gone into this situation, which is a war without end, which the American people have rejected.

SCHIEFFER: Now, let me ask you, and make sure I understand exactly what you are saying because, up until now, Democrats have not been enthusiastic about using the ultimate weapon, and that is to cut off funding.

PELOSI: We won’t do that.

SCHIEFFER: But you will not vote any more money to expand the size of the force there?

Is that what you’re telling us?

PELOSI: I’m saying two things. We will always support the troops who are there. If the president wants to expand the mission, that’s a conversation he has to have with the Congress of the United States.

But that’s not a carte blanche, a blank check to him to do whatever he wishes there.

And I want to make a distinction here. Democrats do support increasing the size of the Army by 30,000, the Marines by 10,000 to make sure we’re able to protect the American people.

Politically and strategically, voting to not fund the war at all is just a ridiculous idea. Sure, it would get the point across that the war must be ended and that the Congress doesn’t support the efforts anymore, but it also jeopardizes troop security and other missions in and around Iraq that are necessary to at least create a secure withdrawal situation. With Democrats in control, we have the ability and authority to exercise oversight and control over funding expansionary surges and escalations in the funding, which as Pelosi said above that we won’t do.

From Loebsack’s campaign explanation of his position, he said he supports ending the way and Congressman Jack Murtha’s House Joint Resolution 73, calling for practicable redeployment. He never advocated removing the funding for the war, but advocated an end to the disaster through oversight and Congressional action. If being Congressionally and politically realistic as well as working to understand the situation more clearly as a freshman congressman is moderating one’s position or walking toward the middle, then I guess Congressman Loebsack is guilty. But I don’t fault him for that and I respect him enough to give him the benefit of the doubt since it seems clear that he understands both the political and personal realities of the consequences of Congressional action.

Rants and Lundby on Iowa Press

Published by

Chris Woods

January 6, 2007 in 2006 Elections, Agriculture, Budget, Culver, Chet, Democrats, Economy, Environment, Iowa Legislature, Iowa politics, Labor, Lundby, Mary, Rants, Chris, Republicans and Taxes. 2 Comments

I have a feeling that I might start making this post a regular weekly fixture. If you’re interested, last week’s recap can be found here (the guests were the Reporters Roundtable discussion crew). This week featured House Minority Leader Christopher Rants and Senate Minority Leader Mary Lundby. You can read the transcript here, as well as get a link to watch the video (in Real Player).

Let me just give my quick overall impression of the show. If we’re going to judge the ferociousness of the opposition, expect the biggest fights to happen in the House versus the Senate. Rants is amenable to compromise when it entirely fits the Republican agenda, but otherwise I expect him to push his caucus to put up tough fights on many issues in the House. He was fierce and on the ball on last night’s show. On the other hand, Mary Lundby seemed weak and out of touch with some members of her caucus. You could definitely tell the strain of being leader was getting to her, particularly with about 8 Republican senators (out of 20) who are giving her the biggest pains. She also tempered many more of her comments on issues compared to Rants. Essentially it seems that Lundby will be in favor of compromise often, while Rants will be pushing more for the Republican alternative instead of compromise.

Mike Glover started off with the tough question to both: Since you were leader prior to the elections and then faced the elections and lost seats, why are you still leaders of your respective caucuses? Rants explained the losses in terms of the overall national mood and wave, but also the fact that some of the candidates didn’t get out and campaign like they should have. He said there wasn’t one overall issue. Lundby didn’t take that approach. Instead, I think she made a big mistake by saying it was a trend. Senate Republicans lost 5 seats in the previous cycle, then 5 more in 2006. Trends are hard to reverse, Sen. Lundby. She still seemed dejected by the losses. David Yepsen asked her about the coup the 8 Republican senators tried to pull by walking out of caucus right after the elections when they re-elected Lundby as leader. She paused while she tried to frame her thoughts and essentially said she wouldn’t comment on it but that there was a united caucus, in her opinion, right now. Moreover, when talking about the Republican losses, it seemed that she echoed the comments of the former Woodbury County Republican chair when she said:

“And in some respects, our candidates felt stronger about their values issues than they felt about issues that all of Iowans think about, and we struggled with that through the campaign.”

It was a case of misplaced priorities, it seems, for some candidates. I will openly admit that I’m not an expert on the Senate Republican caucus, but it seems that Sen. Lundby is going to have a tough time balancing the wishes of the social conservatives in the caucus versus the more mainstream Republicans (those who walked out). She clearly is in a precarious position as leader of a caucus that faces internal strife.

When it came to predicting how the issues facing the legislature would play out, both seemed to agree that the cigarette tax would be increased by the Legislature. Rants called it the first example of Democrats breaking their campaign promise, but I have to disagree with him, partly on the issue of semantics. Democrats running in the legislature can talk about those kinds of things all they want, but with a strong 100k margin of victory for Culver — who actively and vocally campaigned on raising the tax by $1/pack — the people voting for Democrats had to have known that an increase was coming whether they wanted it or not.

On local control, both said that it wouldn’t pass the way the ‘base’ wants it to, but that issues at the state level, such as distance thresholds would definitely be considered. Overall, Lundby seemed more amendable and offered these concessions that will likely happen instead of blanket local control:

“I think thresholds and site distances and also the ability to carve out special areas in Iowa for special consideration for hog confinement, or CAFO, I think we’ll do, yes.”

Local control was always a long shot in this election, but by talking about it Democrats were able to put the issue at the forefront and put a lot of pressure on the legislature to address these issues. Add that to the ICCI Lobby Day coming up on the 9th and we’ll see a lot of citizen pressure for the action as well.

Local control for cities to pass anti-smoking legislation? That seems pretty clearly up in the air. Janet Peterson will be pushing for it big time in the House, but it seems that the both Republican caucuses aren’t entirely clear where they stand on it yet.

When it comes to raising the gas tax, Rants offered a flat no, saying it won’t happen. Lundby, again, offered the position of the loyal opposition, stating:

“I think when you’re elected, whether you’re a minority or majority, you have certain responsibilities to look at issues that are important to Iowa. It’s been since 1989 since we’ve had an increase — increase in gas tax, and yet we have more cares, we travel more time, and the [money allocation] formula is completely out of whack. We pay money where there aren’t people, and we should be looking at the formula. When you take a look at the formula, then you have to keep the option open for the good of Iowa’s roadways and for the good of our commercial and industrial network to at least take a look. To say we’re against it because we’re Republicans, I think is foolish.”

I’m not sure if that last bit was a dig at Rants or not, but to this Democrat it sure came off that way.

When it came to looking at Iowa’s tax structure, Rants offered to explain the three options that are essentially on the table and have been for the past several years. When it boils down to actions by the legislature, Rants is sure that the Democrats will end up shifting things around instead of offering an overhaul of the tax system and end up lessening the commercial burden (and maybe the ag burden) but end up placing it on the property-owners as the shift occurs, unless they plan on decreasing the amount of tax revenues coming in (which he doesn’t offer as a solution for Democrats).

Minimum wage? It’ll pass both houses, with Republicans again hoping to attach some small business things to it. Lundby predicted it passing with 42 or 43 votes in the Senate.

Towards the end of the show, as they begun talking about labor issues, Rants began to beat the gong on Fair Share — or what he framed as ‘Repeal of right to work’ in Iowa. It is clearly going to be the Republicans’ key issue this year, at least in the House, and what they’re going to talk to their constituents about a lot. I’m in the midst of working on a post about the issue and looking for statements and information from House Democrats, so I’ll talk more about this issue a bit later.

Anyway, that’s the gist of the show. Clearly, House Republicans under Rants are going to be truly fierce while Senate Republicans, at least a decent number of them, will be capitulating a bit more than the Republican base might like. I truly can’t see how Mary Lundby will continue to be Senate Republican leader by the end of the 82nd Legislature. I respect and admire the woman for being compromising and trying to move simply beyond partisanship and opposition, but with Rants being so fierce in the House, I think it puts a lot of pressure on her to act the same way. We’ll see how these dynamics start to play out when the legislature convenes on Monday.

The electability curse

Published by

Chris Woods

January 4, 2007 in 2006 Elections, 2008 Elections, Democrats, Iowa politics and Primary 2006. 4 Comments

I’m not usually a fan of The New Republic, but this article by Jonathan Cohn posted to their online edition is quite good and definitely worth the read. The premise?

“You can understand why Democratic activists, funders, and voters are dwelling on such [electability] questions. They want to win the election–and, given everything that is at stake during a presidential election, there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. But will talking about electability actually lead the Democrats to nominate a candidate who is, in fact, electable? Recent experience suggests it may not.”

The rest of the article is very fascinating in its quick but succinct explanation of the problems Democrats faced in 2004. Instead of necessarily focusing on the best Democratic candidate for the job — an internal focus on Democrats — we focused on the candidate who could beat President Bush — an external focus. Instead of focusing on us and the American people in 2004, we instead chose to throw everything we had at President Bush. And we didn’t get anything for it.

In 2006, I think that as a party, there was still some focus on electability by those among the establishment. However, the netroots and the grassroots looked to candidates that, should we say, “rocked the boat” in terms of their candidacy. In Iowa, Blouin was considered to be the establishment favorite inside the party, but Culver won the primary and Fallon ran a remarkable campaign that proved that the establishment party figures aren’t the only ones with a say (that isn’t to say that Culver wasn’t also an establishment guy to a degree, it’s just that Blouin had more support among that group). We saw the same thing in House and Senate races across the country, but the activist base help put people like Jim Webb and Jon Tester over their establishment opponents and look where we are at now.

In 2008, Democrats, particularly here in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina must be on the look out for more than just someone who “can win” or is electable. We need to pick the Democrat who not only is representative of the party as a whole, but is also the best candidate in the field. We’re not looking for someone to beat Bush or a presumptive Republican candidate. It is up in the air on both sides as to who the nominee for the respective parties will be. Let’s take this amazing opportunity and truly make something of it.

Mauro and Northey sworn in today

Published by

Chris Woods

January 2, 2007 in 2006 Elections, Agriculture, Democrats, Energy, Environment, Iowa Legislature, Iowa politics, Republicans and Voting. 1 Comment

Thanks to John Deeth for pointing out the story on the Gazette’s website about the swearing in ceremonies for the five statewide elected officials who took the oath of office today. And it looks like Secretary of State Mauro is planning on getting right to work as he begins to push and lobby for a paper trail for elections in Iowa, something which should make Jerry Depew pretty happy. Unfortunately, there is little actual changes Secretary Mauro can make to the voting process in Iowa, as a paper trail requires an act from the legislature. Though, with the trifecta, one would think it pretty easy to accomplish, but I’m sure there are will be quite the debate about the extent of the paper trail and other aspects that should eventually come into place, such as verified voting.

Bill Northey was also sworn in as Secretary of Agriculture, promising to lobby hard for the renewable fuel industry in Iowa. I hope he actually means Iowa and not Brazil, but we’ll see. At least Culver will able to put Leopold in as head at the DNR, where he can really put Culver’s priorities to work when it comes to water quality and environmental issues, while Northey can be used in putting the Iowa Power Fund into place.

Year in Review

Published by

Chris Woods

December 31, 2006 in 2006 Elections, Blogs, Democrats, Iowa politics, Media and Republicans. 0 Comments

Here are two worthwhile Iowa-centric years in reviews, both worthy of a read: John Deeth’s and CityView’s. Deeth’s is more of my style, but to each their own.

Iowa Press recap

Published by

Chris Woods

December 30, 2006 in 2006 Elections, 2006 Governor's Race, Boswell, Leonard, Democrats, Gronstal, Mike, IA-02, IA-03, Iowa Legislature, Iowa politics, Media, Rants, Chris, Republicans and Yepsen, David. 5 Comments

I only caught the last 5 minutes or so of Iowa Press when it aired tonight, but I was surprised to find out that IPTV.org is now carrying video of their programs online after they’ve aired. I just finished up watching the Reporter’s Roundtable edition for the final episode of 2006 and was pleasantly surprised by what I heard.

In terms of the governor’s race, the biggest thing that I garnered from their discussion was David Yepsen’s mentioning of how just how much Jim Nussle’s divorce hurt him — even though it wasn’t talked about. Yepsen said it had an impact and there was a kind of whisper campaign with it. You could almost see and feel the other reporters flinching at Yepsen’s mention of it and then they went into more discussion about it. The short and sweet of the issue is this: Nussle couldn’t respond to Culver’s ads with Mari and the kids because the minute he brought his family into the equation he would have to deal with divorce questions and issues.

I think we also got a true taste of Yepsen’s dislike for Iowa City when the Board of Regents fiasco was mentioned. Yepsen said, and I quote from the transcript:

“People in Iowa City are always upset about something, and this will cool off.”

Somehow, I don’t think that is the case. Kay Henderson did mention that Culver told her this week that he will appoint four new regents in his first 90 days in office — but Yepsen did retort worthily that they wouldn’t be able to take their seats until April 1st.

Finally, they talked about their rising and falling stars of 2006. Most of the focus was on the Democrats because it was their year of success. Their rising stars included Kevin McCarthy (Democratic Majority Leader in the House), Representative Tom Courtney, Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal (I’m beginning to think that David Yepsen has the hots for him or something the way he talks about him), and Congressman David Loebsack.

When it came to falling stars, they mentioned former speaker of the house and now Republican Minority Leader in the House Christopher Rants. They’re speculating that he isn’t going to like not being in power (duh) and is basically falling on the sword for the House Republican election failures. They don’t expect him to be around much longer.

The other falling star was mentioned by Kay Henderson, and it was kind of a positive falling star for Democrats: Leonard Boswell. She seemed to think that since Boswell has kind of been a training ground for political success in Iowa and beyond that folks like John Norris, Patrick Dillon, and others who have worked with him can encourage him to retire and allow a new Democrat to come in and fill his spot, particularly since he’s older, won’t have a committee chairmanship, and has had health issues.

Anyway, I encourage you all to watch the video and leave your thoughts.

Culver-Judge administration appointments

Published by

Chris Woods

December 28, 2006 in 2006 Elections, Blouin, Mike, Culver, Chet, Democrats, Des Moines and Iowa politics. 0 Comments

Let’s get away from 2008 for a few minutes and talk about the new Democratic administration in the Statehouse. Over the past few weeks, Governor-Elect Chet Culver has made several staff and department appointments and I thought I’d fill you in on them. In that they were released:

Chief of Staff: Patrick Dillon (former Campaign Manager)
Director of Iowa Department of Management: Charles Krogmeier (currently Transition Director and past First Deputy Secretary of State)
Director of Iowa Department of Human Services: Kevin Concannon (a holdover from the Vilsack Administration)
Director of Iowa Department of Education: Judy Jeffrey (another holdover from the Vilsack years)
Director of Iowa Department of Human Rights: Walter Reed, Jr. (a Vilsack holdover)
Director of Iowa Department of Revenue: Mark Schuling (a Vilsack holdover)
Director of Iowa Department of Administrative Services: Mollie Anderson (another holdover)
Director of Iowa Department of Transportation: Nancy Richardson (holdover)
Commandant of the Iowa Veterans Home: Daniel Steen (holdover)
Communications Director: Brad Anderson (campaign and transition communications director)

By carrying over a lot of Vilsack Administration appointees, Culver makes it easier to construct a quick budget for many areas of government and policy with department directors who have experience in their positions and can be ready to build on the Vilsack legacy, just as he promised he would in the campaign. Once Culver is sworn in, he has very little time to put together a cohesive budget that is uniquely his own, so by carrying over appointees and providing them with his policy ideas and priorities, a more solid and more Culver Administration-specific budget can come about — and that’s a good thing.

There are, however, still two interesting/controversial departments without new directors and those are the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Economic Development. The DNR is headed by Jeff Vonk and the DED is headed by Mike Blouin, former Democratic primary opponent for Culver in the race for governor. Kay Henderson asked about those two appointments last week but it looks like a decision won’t be made anytime soon.

Register takes note of Democratic populism

Published by

Chris Woods

December 1, 2006 in 2006 Elections, Congress, Democrats and Iowa politics. 0 Comments

I’m not a fan of calling it centrism (since I don’t think it is), and I’m damn sure its some kind of ‘conservative Democrat revolution’ that led to 2006, so its good news that the Register’s editorial board has taken notice of the new message about Democrats running as populists and winning — folks like Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Jim Webb in Virginia.

But what they get the most is the message that came about from those victories:

“While the Populist Party no longer exists, the idea lives on: Part of the government’s job is to stand up for the little guy.

The test for the new Democratic populists will be whether they live up to the label.”

And I’m sure we will.

Diversity in agriculture

Published by

Chris Woods

November 29, 2006 in 2006 Elections, Agriculture, Democrats, Fundraising, Iowa politics and Republicans. 0 Comments

I missed this post from Kyle last week while I was on vacation, but I think it is worth emphasizing now: Iowa could have had an agriculture secretary who recognized the ability Iowa has to diversify its agricultural economy and situation. Kyle’s right that we could basically mike Iowa focus on ethanol all we want (with some emphasis on soybeans on the side) or we can diversify, while still emphasizing what we’re good at. It was one of the points that Denise O’Brien made throughout the campaign, specifically during her appearance with Northey on Iowa Press.

The Iowa Farm Bureau, through Iowans for Agriculture, effectively bought the election for Northey. If we ever needed a clear and concise reason to look at campaign finance reform in Iowa and didn’t have an effective example, the Northey-O’Brien race provides us with one.