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.
