Just when you thought the economy had hit rock bottom. The Conference Board, a non-profit global business organization has reported that its consumer confidence index has dropped to its lowest point since the last recession in 1992. The New York Times paints the grim picture:

Tuesday’s data suggested a nation struggling with expensive gas and devalued homes, where people are fearful for their jobs and wary about where the economy is headed.

Any positive signs that economists and forecasters may have cited need to be thrown out the window. Even with the consumer confidence index at 50.4%, down a whopping 7.7% from May, the worst may still be yet to come. This report should be a wake up call to legislators across the country on behalf of a nation in desperate need of more help.

As the economy worsens, more and more key players are getting on board with the idea of a second economic recovery package. But not everyone’s where we need them to be to get something done in time to matter. For example Rep. David Obey (D-WI), powerful chairman of the Appropriations Committee free associated to Congress Daily (subscription only) and revealed that he doesn’t quite get how urgent doing something to stave off this recession is:

“People use all kinds of terminology; I don’t care if you call it a second supplemental or a second economic [stimulus] package — to me there are all kinds of things that we need domestically — but we need finish this job [war supplemental] before we can start thinking about the next one”

This pains me. Not only are House Democrats punting on telecom immunity, they’re putting war spending ahead of domestic spending.

As I wrote on myDD, Bush’s first economic stimulus package just didn’t work. We didn’t get the big sweeping surge of economic growth we were promised. Even what good news we’ve gotten was drowned out by a chorus of  story after story of bad economic news. The costs of living are growing rapidly as employment becomes harder to find. Food is getting more expensive as food bank lines grow longer. The longer Congress waits to act, the worse things will get.

And the states can’t wait for the aid that Democratic leaders say must be included in a second stimulus package either. State spending is the last prop holding up the economy and is at a tipping point. More than half of the states are facing crippling budget shortfalls that total $48 billion for the upcoming fiscal year. In the absence of aid from the federal government, states have been forced to cut vital services for many of our most vulnerable citiznes. The Center on Budget and Policy Prioritiesgives outlines the chopping block:

At least 12 states have implemented or are considering cuts that will affect low-income children’s or families’ eligibility for health insurance or reduce their access to health care services.

At least 10 states are cutting or proposing to cut K-12 education; three of them are proposing cuts that would affect access to child care.

At least 11 states have proposed or implemented reductions their state workforce. Workforce reductions often result in reduced access to services residents need.

And when states are forced to do things like cut their state workforce, the economy suffers even more. According to CNN/Money:

With falling revenue from sales and income taxes, and property-tax declines looming, states, cities and towns have already laid off tens of thousands of government employees. Many expect more job cuts ahead as public officials struggle to balance their budgets.

Economists say that cutbacks in jobs and spending by local governments could be a major drag on the overall economy.

It’s cool that Obey recognizes the need for a  second stimulus package. But he also needs to understand that each day he lets pass without doing something means the economic hole we’re in is that much deeper and is going to require that much more federal spending to help us get out of.

Very demoralized, judging by Steve King’s latest comments to the press:

Iowa 5th District Congressman Steve King said a lack of enthusiasm in the Republican Party will make it difficult for the GOP to regain control of the U.S. House.

Democrats wrested control from Republicans in November 2006, putting lawmakers who had only known serving in the majority into the minority. King said Monday he’s doubtful the House, which now has 236 Democrats and 199 Republicans, can swing back.

“The math doesn’t look good,” King said.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Republican turnout in King’s own district this November is substantially down on 2004 levels, because John McCain has never been popular with hard-core conservatives.

Less than a week remains in the second fundraising quarter–go give some cash to Rob Hubler, who is challenging King.

So the U.S. House races don’t look great for Republicans. What about the Senate?

Well, Senator John Ensign of Nevada chairs the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, and he said two weeks ago that losing only three Senate seats “would be a terrific night for us, absolutely.” He added that Barack Obama is likely to help Democratic challengers in some states, such as Oregon.

Apparently Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon agrees. This commercial tells you a lot about how Smith views the political climate:

Keep in mind that Smith endorsed John McCain early in the presidential contest. Yet clearly Smith believes that in Oregon, the less said about McCain, the better for his own re-election prospects.

Several bloggers have pointed out that this ad is misleading, since it implies that Obama has somehow endorsed Smith. Of course, Obama is solidly behind Smith’s Democratic opponent, Jeff Merkley.

Moreover, this commercial’s claim that Smith “helped lead the fight for a cleaner environment” is not supported by his voting record. Sarah Lane, netroots coordinator for Merkley, notes that Smith has a 29 percent lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters.

It’s not the first time Smith has tried to run away from the Republican Party in this campaign. This earlier tv ad portrayed him as someone who has stood up to President George Bush. I don’t think voters are going to buy this makeover.

If you want to follow the House and Senate races across the country, bookmark this page to read the frequent roundups by Daily Kos front-pager brownsox.

Getting back to our state, leading Iowa Republicans have been pessimistic about the coming election for months. The low turnout in the GOP primary races on June 3 can’t be encouraging for them.

Find a few statehouse candidates you believe in and give them money before June 30. Strong fundraising in the second quarter will help the candidates both directly and indirectly (by driving the media narrative about greater Democratic enthusiasm this year).

Scott McClellan appeared before the House Judiciary Committee today to testify about the exposure of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.

McClellan recently published a book called, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.”

According to Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, Republicans on that committee “worked feverishly to discredit the former White House press secretary who had turned against his patron and former boss, President Bush.”

I don’t have a transcript of the hearing, but Milbank reported that Iowa’s own Congressman Steve King asked McClellan, “Couldn’t you have taken this to the grave with you and done this country a favor?”

That’s just what I try to teach my kids–when you see other people committing crimes and lying about it, do the country a favor by keeping your mouth shut.

If you are tired of King embarrassing our great state on a regular basis, please donate to Rob Hubler, the Democrat seeking to represent Iowa’s fifth Congressional district.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall put up this video clip from C-SPAN at Talking Points Memo:

SECOND UPDATE: Daily Kos user 2laneIA posted a good and funny diary about this too.

Just yesterday House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was telling us that he’d basically lost control over House Democrats and that they were the ones forcing his hand in this ridiculous compromise over FISA that would grant big telecommunication companies immunity over their warrantless wiretapping and other exercises.  At about 11:30 this morning I get an email from the office of the majority leader telling me that between the House and Senate majority and minority leaders of their respective intelligence committees that a compromise has been reached–and according to the Wall Street Journal, that compromise essentially include immunity.

As David Kurtz points out at TPM, it is a ridiculous compromise that creates such a weak standard for “conditional immunity” that just about any telecom company could meet.

If Hoyer thinks he’s lot control now (but then regained it to tout this compromise) let’s show him what a lack of control looks like when the blogosphere puts the pressure on his office and Congressional Democrats across the country not to vote for this POS compromise.

CALL NOW!

Here’s the switchboard number for the Majority Leader’s Office: 202-225-3130

You can reach Iowa’s congressmen at these numbers:

• IA-01, Bruce Braley (D): (202) 225-2911
• IA-02, Dave Loebsack (D): (202) 225-6576
• IA-03, Leonard Boswell (D): (202) 225-3806
• IA-04, Tom Latham (R): (202) 225-5476
• IA-05, Steve King (R): (202) 225-4426

Remember to be polite and concise, expressing your opposition to the FISA Amendments Act (H.R. 6304) and asking for your representative to oppose it as well.

If you get a response one way or the other on how they’d vote, leave a note in the comments.

Ed Fallon sent an e-mail to supporters today asking for donations to help retire approximately $35,000 in debt from his campaign (the first campaign he has ended in debt).

He hired a large field staff and was apparently counting on more help from national groups than he ultimately received. With the notable exception of Democracy for America, which raised tens of thousands of dollars for Fallon’s campaign, most progressive groups stayed on the sidelines during the primary in Iowa’s third district.

That includes some groups that spent lots of money on behalf of Donna Edwards in her successful primary challenge in Maryland’s fourth Congressional district.

Relatively few nationally-prominent bloggers helped Fallon raise money. In contrast, the Daily Kos community and the Blue America group of bloggers each raised tens of thousands of dollars for Donna Edwards.

The full text of the e-mail from Fallon is after the jump. If you want to donate to his campaign, you can still donate through the website at:

http://www.fallonforcongress.com

Alternatively, you can mail a check to Fallon for Congress, 752 16th Street, Des Moines, IA 50314.  

Steve King likes nothing better than to stake out a conservative position on a hot-button social issue. I learned yesterday from the One Iowa advocacy group that this week Congressman King “has introduced a Federal Constitutional Amendment to codify discrimination and ban same sex marriages nationwide.”

Please consider donating to Democrat Rob Hubler’s Congressional campaign. Even though Iowa’s fifth district has a partisan index of R+8, turnout among hard-line conservatives may be depressed this November. John McCain has little organization in Iowa, and he is not popular with the anti-immigration wingnuts. Many moderate Republicans are embarrassed by King, so perhaps they would be open to ticket-splitting.

It’s not as if King has been effective in bringing money home to his district, which would give people a reason to vote for him even if they disagreed with some of his antics.

Need more reasons to support a good Democrat taking on this horrible Republican?

King received a perfect 100 rating from the American Conservative Union in 2007, and has a near-perfect 98 rating from that organization during his three terms in Congress.

King wrote Iowa’s English-only law when he was in the legislature and successfully filed suit to prevent the Secretary of State’s office from providing voter information in languages other than English.

He thinks it’s fine for pharmacists to refuse to prescribe the morning-after pill.

He has sponsored a constitutional amendment to ban the federal income tax and has warned against creating a “condom culture” in Africa.

And of course, he said a few months ago that terrorists would be dancing in the streets if Obama were elected president.

Click that last link for more of King’s “greatest hits,” including his defense of Senator Joseph McCarthy and his characterization of torture at Abu Ghraib as “hazing.”

Hubler deserves our support for taking on this challenge. I’ll be writing more about this race in the coming months. Click here to get involved in his campaign.

The full text of the e-mail I received from One Iowa about the newly proposed federal constitutional amendment is after the jump. You can donate to that organization’s Fairness Fund PAC at this ActBlue page. They have a matching gift pledge that runs through July 14.

I received a fundraising letter from Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign recently. It contained a healthy dose of the misleading spin I have come to expect from Boswell’s mailings this year.

I’m not going to retype the whole text, but this passage made me laugh (emphasis is in the original):

My republican opponent has had four months to raise money and plan for the general election; an election that I am only able to focus my attention on now. While I was competing against an opponent for the Democratic nomination, the republicans were getting ready to once again challenge us in this competitive district. This time they have the advantage of a large head start.

Get real. Iowa’s third Congressional district is not on the National Republican Congressional Committee’s list of 2008 targets.

CQ Politics has rated IA-03 “safe Democrat”, in part because the Republicans are not targeting the seat.

The latest Cook Political Report of competitive U.S. House races makes no mention of IA-03, which means that seat is considered safe for the incumbent.

Similarly, IA-03 is nowhere to be found on Swing State Project’s list of competitive U.S. House races.

What about that big “head start” the Republicans supposedly got while Boswell was facing a primary challenge? The most recent Federal Election Commission reporting, based on the May 14, 2008 filings, show that Boswell had raised about $1.16 million this election cycle and had about $709,000 cash on hand.

Republican candidate Kim Schmett had raised about $54,500 so far this year and had just under $33,300 cash on hand.

Let Red Brannan and the others who funded the smear campaign against Ed Fallon replenish Boswell’s campaign coffers.

Democrats in the third district should vote for Boswell in November, but don’t be a sucker–plenty of other Democratic candidates need and deserve your donations more.

Speaking of which, I have given Becky Greenwald $100. Go here if you would like to contribute to her campaign. A strong fundraising number at the end of the second quarter would give her a boost against Tom Latham.

UPDATE: Another worthy candidate is Iowa native Heather Ryan, who is running against a horrible incumbent Republican in Kentucky’s first district. RDemocrat’s latest post on that race is here.

Thanks to corncam and John Deeth for pointing out omissions in my earlier diary on this topic.

Last year I bristled whenever Hillary Clinton supporters brought up the fact that Iowa and Mississippi are the only two states never to have elected a woman governor or sent a woman to Congress. I understood that they were trying to lower expectations for Hillary in Iowa, and possibly also trying to goad Iowa Democrats into supporting her to “prove” that we aren’t sexist.

But I didn’t like the implication that Iowa Democrats are to blame for our state’s unfortunate record on electing women. We have nominated two outstanding women for governor: Roxanne Conlin in 1982 and Bonnie Campbell in 1994.

State Senator Jean Lloyd-Jones was the Democratic nominee against U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley in 1992.

In addition, we have tried to send women to the U.S House of Representatives many times.

In fact, thanks to Becky Greenwald’s victory in the fourth district primary last Tuesday, Iowa Democrats can proudly say that there isn’t a single district in which we have never tried to send a woman to Congress.

In IA-01, we chose Ann Hutchinson, the former mayor of Bettendorf, to run against Jim Nussle in 2002.

In IA-02, Cedar Rapids doctor Julie Thomas ran against Jim Leach in 2002.

Lynn Cutler ran against Cooper Evans in IA-03 in 1980 and 1982.

Elaine Baxter, then Iowa’s Secretary of State, faced Jim Ross Lightfoot in IA-03 in 1992 and 1994.

Two women have tried to win IA-05 for the Democrats: Sheila McGuire, who ran against Tom Latham in 1994, and Joyce Schulte, who ran against Steve King in 2004 and 2006.

I’ve discussed some of the reasons these women all lost before. Iowa has had a lot of long-serving incumbents, who are always difficult to beat. We have had relatively few open races for Congress, because we keep losing Congressional districts following the census.

Three Democratic women have run for open seats in Congress here. Cutler came close in 1980, but the Reagan landslide was working against her. Baxter came close in 1992, but the redrawn third district had more of a Republican lean. McGuire not only had to compete in the heavily Republican fifth district, but also ran for the open seat in a non-presidential year (when Democratic turnout is always lower).

Meanwhile, Iowa hasn’t experienced some of the circumstances that give an extra boost to a woman candidate. Of the 245 women who have served in Congress, 46 have been widows who directly succeeded their husbands. Happily, we haven’t had any incumbents die in office for many decades.

Nor have our women candidates benefited from other family connections that have helped women get to Congress in some states. Former Kansas Senator Nancy Kassebaum was the daughter of that state’s legendary politician Alf Landon. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin benefited from the fact that many South Dakotans had voted for a Herseth before.

Tuesday was a good day for women candidates here, as John Deeth pointed out in this post. Not only did Greenwald win convincingly in IA-04, Iowa Republicans nominated Mariannette Miller-Meeks for Congress in the second district. She is the first Republican woman nominated for Congress in Iowa in more than 30 years. Deeth informed me that Republicans nominated Sonja Egenes to run against incumbent Neal Smith in the fourth district in 1962. Berkley Bedell beat Joanne Soper in Iowa’s sixth district in 1976 (we lost the sixth district after the 1990 census).

Will 2008 be the year Iowa finally leaves Mississippi behind? As challengers facing incumbents, Miller-Meeks and Greenwald go into the general election as underdogs. The partisan lean of the second district (D+7) will be an additional hurdle for Miller-Meeks, especially in a presidential election year. If Barack Obama has coattails anywhere, it will be in the People’s Republic of Johnson County (the Iowa City area).

Greenwald’s district is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans (D+0), but she is facing a seven-term incumbent who sits on the House Appropriations Committee.

What do you think? Will Iowa voters make history this year?

We all make mistakes, but it’s not every day that someone makes an move which will haunt him for his entire career.

William Meyers confirmed in an interview with Iowa Independent that he plans to run for Congress as an independent. He came in third in Tuesday’s primary in the fourth district with about 13 percent of the vote.

His campaign website has already been reconfigured to promote him as an “independent voice for Iowa”:

The fight isn’t over! A choice between Greenwald and Latham will once again leave the majority of 4th district residents without a voice in Washington, D.C.

The time is long overdue that WE, the majority, have someone just like us representing our best interests instead of the special interests.

Join me after the jump for my take on why this candidacy won’t help anyone, least of all William Meyers.

I will write more about the third district primary later this week, but for now I want to say this: challenging Congressman Leonard Boswell was a worthwhile effort.

This race forced Boswell to work a little harder on constituent service. To cite just one example, Windsor Heights is about to get a new zip code, which probably wouldn’t be happening if not for the primary.

More important, this race forced Boswell to move to a better place on several issues of national importance. If not for Ed Fallon, I doubt Boswell would have signed on to a strong global warming bill, and I think he would still be voting for blank checks to fund the war in Iraq.

If not for Fallon, Boswell would in all likelihood not have given this speech during the House debate over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in March:

Just a few weeks before that speech, Boswell had publicly advocated for granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies in the FISA bill.

Will these changes last? Representative Jane Harman (D, CA-36) has a much better voting record since she faced a progressive primary challenger two years ago.

It is too early to say whether Boswell will follow a similar path, or whether he will revert to his earlier voting patterns. I hope that he will think twice about voting with House Republicans on high-profile issues after all of his campaign’s talk about standing up to George Bush and fighting for Democratic values.

I don’t expect any other Democrat to run against Boswell. Although there is a clear opening for someone to run against him from the left (especially if that someone didn’t support Ralph Nader in 2000), most politically ambitious Democrats don’t like to burn bridges with the whole party establishment.

For what it’s worth, a Boswell voter I know, who is much better connected than I am, thinks there may be a Democrat or two who would consider taking on the incumbent in 2010. If the right kind of candidate laid the groundwork for a vigorous challenge early, perhaps Boswell would retire before the next election cycle.

In any event, I am glad that Fallon gave me and 13,000 other third district Democrats a chance to vote for someone who would better represent progressive values in Congress.

I wrote last week that Congressman Leonard Boswell’s closing argument is “I’m loyal, he voted for Nader.” A radio ad I heard in the car on Monday confirmed that impression.

I couldn’t jot down notes and have been unable to find an audio file of this ad on the web, but I will update this post with that information if someone can send it to me.

The ad used a female voice-over rather than Boswell’s voice. The first part of the ad relayed positive information about the incumbent:

-The teachers have endorsed Boswell because of his work on education.

-The nurses have endorsed Boswell because of his work on health care.

-Working families support Boswell because he stands up for them.

-Al Gore and Tom Harkin are also supporting Boswell.

Then the ad shifts gears with language about how it’s a different story with Ed Fallon. Fallon supported Ralph Nader over Al Gore in 2000. Because Fallon campaigned for Nader instead of Gore, Democrats have been stuck with eight years of President George W. Bush, with a lousy economy and an unending war in Iraq.

All of the above is a paraphrase based on my best recollection. If anyone else has heard this ad (or better yet, has a recording of it), I would love to post a more precise version of its contents.

On one level, I am not surprised that Boswell is talking about Nader in his radio ads, because that is clearly his trump card.

On the other hand, I expected Boswell to stick to all-positive advertising in broadcast media. Typically an incumbent does not go negative on a primary challenger unless there is some concern about the outcome.

By the way, on Saturday and Monday I didn’t receive any direct-mail from either Boswell’s campaign or the anti-Fallon group Independent Voices.

As far as I can tell, the Boswell campaign’s attempt to draw a contrast between Boswell and Fallon regarding methamphetamine got no traction in any Iowa mainstream media. Please correct me if I am wrong, and let me know if you have seen media reports on that issue in the past couple of days.

UPDATE: Boswell’s campaign manager Scott Ourth sent out his final mass e-mail yesterday. I’ve put the full text after the jump.

Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign put out a press release on Saturday seeking to contrast the incumbent’s record with Ed Fallon’s record on fighting methamphetamine use in Iowa:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE          

May 31, 2008

CONTACT:

Betsy Shelton, 515-238-3356

Boswell Committed to Fighting Iowa’s Meth Crisis

Des Moines, IA – Today Polk County Attorney John Sarcone and Dave Murillo, President of the Des Moines Police Burial and Protective Association, praised Congressman Leonard Boswell for his important work and leadership in fighting Iowa’s methamphetamine crisis.

Boswell thanked Sarcone and Murillo for their support.  “John Sarcone and Dave Murillo are out there fighting the meth epidemic every day.  I will continue to do all I can to help secure funding to provide law enforcement with the proper tools and training to end the manufacture and use of methamphetamine.”

“Congressman Boswell has been a staunch ally and supporter of law enforcement during his tenure in Washington,” said Murillo.  :He is a rarity in politics today as he is man of his word.  Leonard has taken a strong stand against the illegal narcotics trade, and the manufacture, sale and use of illegal drugs.  Leonard has always been a huge supporter of law enforcement and public safety.”

“Congressman Boswell was ahead of the curve on fighting the meth epidemic when he co-founded the Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine,” stated Polk County Attorney John Sarcone.  “He secured funding for the Drug Endangered Children program which has dramatically helped law enforcement get special services to children whose parents used and manufactured meth in home.”  Sarcone added, “Ed Fallon has never championed any cause for law enforcement. Leonard has always been there for us and his fight against the meth epidemic is a perfect example of his support of law enforcement.”

During his legislative tenure, Fallon opposed appropriations to fight the growing meth epidemic and to establish mandatory jail sentences for persons found in possession of methamphetamine.  Fallon also voted against increased funding for law enforcement in the fight against meth.  He was one of only six House members to vote against a $3.3 million plan to fight Iowa’s meth epidemic with a combination of treatment, education, and tougher enforcement measures.  At the time, Fallon told the Cedar Rapids Gazette, “This bill is the easy way out.”  Fallon was the only House member to oppose an increase in penalties for people manufacturing meth in the presence of a minor.

Congressman Boswell served as co-chair of the Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine, and has championed legislation that has successfully clamped down on the meth labs that threaten Iowa’s communities.  Boswell has long been a leader in the fight against methamphetamine use.

I was not living in Iowa in 1999, when the legislature approved the $3.3 million bill on methamphetamine. I was unable to find the article quoting Fallon on the Cedar Rapids Gazette’s website. However, when I contacted Fallon’s campaign for a comment on this press release, they forwarded the entire article to me.

Here is a larger excerpt from the Cedar Rapids Gazette article from March 16, 1999:

Detractors of the bill said it will add burden to already overcrowded county jails and courthouses and mask the inadequate response to treatment with get-tough enforcement measures that are easier to tout politically.

“In my very strong opinion, this bill is not going to do it,” said Rep. Ed Fallon, D-Des Moines, one of six representatives to oppose the measure. “This bill is the easy way out. If this legislation is going to be taken seriously, we’re going to have to appropriate quite a bit of money.”

So while the Boswell press release gives the impression that Fallon was not interested in fighting meth use in Iowa, the context makes clear that Fallon opposed the bill because it did not do enough to address the problem.

Did the 1999 legislation solve the meth use problem in Iowa? Apparently not, because a state government report issued in October 2004 determined that “Methamphetamine has become an increasing problem in Iowa over the last 10 years.”

Since that 1999 bill was enacted, the Iowa legislature has addressed methamphetamine several more times. The most significant effort seems to be Senate File 169, which passed the legislature unanimously in 2005. Instead of increasing the penalties for manufacturing meth, that law sought to restrict access to a component used in manufacturing meth. State Drug Policy Coordinator Marvin L. Van Haaften reported to the legislature the following year,

Senate File 169-unanimously approved last year by the Legislature, signed into law by Governor Vilsack, and implemented May 21, 2005-classified the key ingredient used to make methamphetamine (meth) as a Schedule V Controlled Substance. Commonly referred to as Iowa’s pseudoephedrine (PSE) control or meth lab reduction law, this statute removed all cold and allergy products containing PSE from store shelves and placed the vast majority of them behind the pharmacy counter to be dispensed on a controlled non-prescription basis.

Between June and December 2005, Iowa meth lab incidents plummeted nearly 80 percent compared to the same period in 2004, as shown in the month-by-month comparisons from the Iowa Department of Public Safety, Division of Narcotics Enforcement below.

[…]

The imprint of Senate File 169 on public safety may be summed up best by one of the State’s top prosecutors. United States Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa-Charles Larson-has stated publicly that in his many years of public service in the criminal justice arena he’s “never seen one law have a larger impact on reducing crime.”

It’s certainly worthwhile to reduce the number of meth labs operating in Iowa. But did the 2005 law reduce meth use or meth addiction in this state?

Not according to the state drug policy coordinator’s 2006 report:

Verbatim drug treatment survey comments:

• “Our meth clients have large numbers of special needs that overwhelm our case managers…Treatment is taking longer because of reduced cognitive ability, which needs to be addressed in order to obtain participation in the treatment process.”

• “The number of female clients reporting meth usage has increased.”

• “Our available data indicate no substantial change in the areas outlined in this survey since the pseudoephedrine control law has been in effect.”

• “I have actually had clients tell me that the law has impacted the ability to make meth in northeast Iowa, and therefore the availability.”

• “The State must understand that while the new law regulating the purchase of pseudoephedrine has worked to reduce the number of meth labs in the State, the incidence and prevalence of meth abuse continues to rise. This is not a failure of the law, but the realities of the epidemic.”

All signs point toward a continued strong demand for meth in Iowa. At best, meth use appears to be holding steady at a relatively high level. At worst, more Iowans are getting hooked on this super-addictive stimulant.

Sounds like Fallon was right in 1999, when he called for allocating more resources to treating methamphetamine addicts.

Here is a link to a pdf file containing Marvin L. Van Haaften’s report from January 2006.

Ed Fallon’s campaign sent out a press release on Friday highlighting points he made in a resolution he offered as a member of the Iowa House before the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003.

Click here to read House Resolution 17, which Fallon offered and 20 other Iowa House Democrats co-sponsored. The resolution didn’t go anywhere; Republicans controlled the chamber in 2003.

Here is the release from the Fallon campaign:

Before the War, Fallon Took Lead Against Invading Iraq

Friday, May 30, 2008 (4:30 PM CDT) – Today, Ed Fallon reiterated that the war in Iraq is one of the main reasons he decided to challenge Congressman Boswell. Boswell voted for the war and continued to vote to fund it until last year. Fallon said, “Congressman Boswell says in his mailers that he’s standing up to George Bush to end the war. But where was he most of the past five years?”

In stark contrast, while serving as a State Representative in 2003, Ed Fallon authored HR 17 to encourage the President not to initiate a preemptive, unilateral military strike against Iraq. Fallon was joined by 20 other Democrats who co-sponsored the resolution.

Fallon claimed he had it right, stating in HR 17 that the war would:

   * Undermine our efforts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. Bin Laden remains at large.

   * Destabilize the region. Iran has only grown in influence as a result of the war.

   * Turn into a humanitarian disaster. Iraqi civilians have suffered greatly throughout the war.

   * Lead to a long-term military presence in Iraq. U.S. troops have now been in Iraq longer than they were engaged in WWII.

   * Cause America to bear most of the financial cost of the war, which we have.

   * Cost between $100 billion and $1 trillion, and we are now almost at a trillion dollars.

   * Cost us $15-$20 billion per year. That was a conservative estimate: the actual cost is about $12 billion a month, or $144 billion a year.

   * Cause deeper federal budget deficits, further weakening the economy and undermining of the long-term prospects for solvency the Social Security and Medicare systems.

Fallon says, “Those who voted for this war had it wrong on so many levels. They were duped by President Bush’s propaganda machine and failed to understand how the war would cripple our economy, leave thousands dead or injured, and polarize our nation. Congress needs leaders who are able to think critically before similar mistakes are made in the future.”

Before the Iowa caucuses, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign widely distributed the text and the DVD of the speech he gave in October 2002 opposing pre-emptive war in Iraq.

It makes sense for Fallon to emphasize this point in light of Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign communications that say the incumbent is “working every day” to end the war and bring the troops home.

The question is how many Democratic voters will hear this message from the Fallon campaign. This is where the resources for district-wide direct mail or television ads would have come in handy.

Fallon was scheduled to be at the downtown Des Moines farmer’s market all morning today. (More than 10,000 people attend that market on a typical Saturday.) I have another commitment today, but if you saw Fallon’s booth at the market, please post a comment to let us know what kind of campaign literature was being distributed. Did they have anything focusing on his early opposition to the Iraq War?

Wow, I never knew Red Brannan, one of the developers who would like to see a four-lane beltway constructed in rural northeast Polk County, was so mad when Ed Fallon voted against residency restrictions for sex offenders in 2002.

But that vote must have really gotten Brannan riled up, because today I got another direct-mail piece on the issue from the 527 group Independent Voices. On Tuesday a similar mailer arrived from the same group, which I transcribed here. Matt Stoller put a scanned image of the earlier mailer up at Open Left.

Today’s mailer has a large photo of an empty child’s swing, next to these words in large print:

Would you want a sex offender living near your kid’s school?

At the bottom in small print it says, “Paid for By Independent Voices, Red Brannan Chair.” Hey, at least there’s a union bug next to that line!

On the flip side the same photo of an empty swing appears faintly. There’s a smaller picture of Fallon near the bottom of the page, holding up one finger, as if lecturing. These words appear on the page:

Ed Fallon put kids at risk simply to make a political statement

When Ed Fallon had the chance to stop convicted sex offenders from living near our schools, he thought it was more important to make a political statement than to protect our kids. He cast the only vote against this prohibition in the state house.

Our kids have enough challenges, why would Ed let these predators live next to our schools?

Associated Press   October 14, 2005

Fallon concedes he is the only lawmaker who opposed the restrictions.

“There was a fear that if we don’t support this bill we’ll be viewed as weak on crime.”

Call Ed at 515.277.0424

Tell Ed our kids are more important than his politics. As him to oppose letting convicted sex offenders live near our schools.

The hypocrisy of this mailing is breathtaking. As I mentioned in the post about the previous mailer on this subject, residency restrictions for sex offenders do nothing to reduce crimes against children–prosecutors and children’s advocates agree on this point. The proponents of these laws are the ones who would rather “make a political statement” than protect our kids.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board described the earlier mailer from Independent Voices as “the cheapest of cheap shots.”

This letter to the editor, published today, made several great points as well:

The 2,000-foot law was passed as a knee-jerk reaction to high-profile abuse cases. The result has been a drop in the number of sex offenders registering their address and the creation of rural communities comprising mainly sex offenders. What the law fails to take into account is the fact that only a small minority of sex offenders are playground pedophiles.

About 80 percent of abuse victims knew the offender and 43 percent are relatives. I ask both Fallon and U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell, along with all other lawmakers, to take the time to develop sensible laws that promote rehabilitation and judge offenses on a case-by-case basis. Sexually active high schoolers shouldn’t be categorized with rapists and punished just as harshly.

– Jade Howser Nagel, Urbandale

The political posturing of the majority of Iowa legislators has drained law enforcement resources and led to fewer sex offenders registering their addresses. That doesn’t keep my two young kids or anyone else’s kids safer, and Red Brannan’s group should know this very well.

Will this mailing scare third district Democrats away from Fallon, or will it backfire? Your guess is as good as mine.

In 1920 the 19 th amendment was passed, giving women in Iowa and everywhere else in the United States the right to vote. Even before it was passed several western states allowed women to vote and in 1916 Jeannette Rankin was the first woman elected to congress. Since then 249 women have been elected to the House of Representatives—none of them from Iowa. Iowa is only one of two states (the other is Mississippi) that has never elected a woman congress person or governor. Astonishing. 

Several people (all men) have asked me why the gender of a candidate matters. My answer is that it matters because we are electing a representative—someone who is supposed to represent voters—and half of the voters in Iowa are female. Yet all of Iowa's representatives, both of its senators, and its governor are all male.

That said, I could never vote for a candidate just because of her gender, so I looked at all of the democratic candidates for the fourth district and these are the reasons that I believe that Becky Greenwald is the best candidate:

First, Becky Greenwald is the most electable in the general election. Unlike some of the other candidates, she has spent decades building relationships in the district. She's worked in the democratic party for years, helping other democrats to be elected. This has paid off for her in endorsements (Tom and Christie Vilsack, several state senators and representatives, and the Des Moines Register).

Secondly, she is doing well at fund raising. She's raised the most of any of the candidates on Act Blue. Not counting self-funding, she has raised more than any other of the candidates period. Two of the candidates have not even raised enough money to have to file financial reports—which means that they have raised less than $5000 each. It is imperative that the democratic nominee have the money needed to face Tom Lathem in the general election. None of the democratic candidates have much name recognition. Whoever gets the nomination will have to be able to afford to advertise to get his or her name out there.

I will support whomever gets the nomination, but I'm backing Becky because I believe that she best represents my interests and because I know she has the best chance of being elected in November.

Lori Hebel, Emmetsburg, IA 

Al Gore has already sent out e-mails and letters raising money for Congressman Leonard Boswell, and now he has a starring role in the direct-mail piece I received today from the Boswell campaign.

I don’t have any problem with Gore campaigning for Boswell.

I do wish Boswell had absorbed the message of Gore’s September 2002 speech on “Iraq and the War on Terrorism.”  

I also wish Boswell had talked with Gore before voting for George Bush’s energy bill in 2005.

Finally, I wish Boswell would have signed on as a co-sponsor of the Safe Climate Act last summer, when many House Democrats did, instead of waiting until December, after he had learned Ed Fallon was planning to run against him.

A description and full transcript of Boswell’s direct-mail piece is after the jump.

I have not seen this ad yet, and I can’t find anything on You Tube or Leonard Boswell’s campaign website, but the Des Moines Register on Wednesday summarized a 30-second television commercial Boswell has started running:

OPPOSITION TO BUSH: Boswell, who is seeking his seventh term, highlights in the ad his opposition to proposed Bush administration spending cuts in college loan programs this year. Boswell, facing a challenge from former state Rep. Ed Fallon of Des Moines, has been criticized by some liberals for supporting some Bush administration proposals.

A LOYAL DEMOCRAT: The ad closes with a narrator saying, “Leonard Boswell, a trusted Democrat, always standing up for you.”

I’ll update this post with the video if someone can send me the link.

Good for Boswell for opposing spending cuts in college loan programs. (If he had been consistently willing to stand up to the Bush administration and the Republican policy agenda, this primary wouldn’t even be happening, but that’s another story.)

Also on Wednesday, I received a direct-mail piece from the Boswell campaign about Ed Fallon’s support for Ralph Nader in 2000. This is the third such mailing the campaign has sent out. The first two hit mailboxes in April, and I transcribed them here and here.

This mailing is similar in design, but it uses a normal font instead of that “scary font” that looks like it came from a ransom note, which appeared in the earlier two Nader mailings.

On one side, there’s a photo of the bottom half of Fallon’s smiling face, and this text (partly in white, partly in Hawkeye gold against a black background):

Ed Fallon opposed Al Gore in 2000

“If I had three hands maybe I could hold my nose, my gut and my mouth and vote for Al Gore. But in good conscience, I can’t, I won’t, and you shouldn’t either.”

(New York Times, 10/29/2000)

Fallon supported Ralph Nader instead…

The other side has large photos of Fallon’s and Nader’s faces next to each other. The text reads:

Ed Fallon Let Iowa Democrats Down by Endorsing Ralph Nader

Ed Fallon claims to be a real Democrat, but in 2000 he helped elect George Bush by endorsing and actively campaigning for Ralph Nader.1 The Bush presidency has been a disaster. We are mired in a War with no exit strategy and have an economy in recession with rising costs that are hurting Iowans. Ed Fallon now says it was a mistake, but his judgment let Iowa Democrats and our nation down–how can we trust him to represent our values in Congress?

1 Des Moines Register, 1/25/01, 11/18/00, 10/31/00

Enough Phony Politics. Say NO to Ed Fallon.

For several weeks a photo of Gore along with a quote supporting Boswell have been prominently featured on the front page of Boswell’s campaign website.

I’ve been saying all year that Nader is a strong card for Boswell to play, because it’s the only way for this incumbent who has repeatedly voted with Republicans and corporate interests to cast himself as a more loyal Democrat than Fallon.

I know people who are voting for Boswell solely because of Nader.

That said, many Gore voters like myself have decided that this isn’t a deal-breaker, in light of Boswell’s voting record.

I have no idea whether a third Nader mailing will push additional voters into Boswell’s camp. By now everyone politically active knows about this issue.

Final, unrelated point: Marc Hansen’s latest column on Boswell’s refusal to debate is funny.

The day after I received a misleading hit piece on Ed Fallon, a second mailer from the 527 group Independent Voices arrived in the mail.

This one shows a cornfield on one side, with these words in large print:

Why Doesn’t Ed Fallon

Support Iowa’s

Ethanol Industry?

At the bottom of that side, it says, “Paid for By Independent Voices, Red Brannan Chair”

The other side has corn kernels in the background, as well as a photo of Fallon and a graphic of a container for gasoline with corn flowing out of the spout. The text on this page says,

CORN

Helping Us Become Independent of Foreign Oil

Iowa’s ability to produce corn efficiently has helped us become the national leader for ethanol production.

Alternative fuels are one way to end our dependence on Middle East oil. Ending that oil dependence could also revitalize Iowa’s economy if we are able to continue our national leadership in alternative fuel production.

So why did Ed Fallon say he wouldn’t support subsidies for ethanol production right here in Iowa?

Call Ed at 515.277.0420

Tell Ed Fallon he should quit supporting policies that cost us money at the pump.

Of course, this direct-mail piece doesn’t tell the whole story. Many people think subsidies to support corn-based ethanol production are no longer needed. Fallon advocates moving toward producing ethanol from cellulosic sources other than corn, and there are strong arguments in favor of doing so.

I mentioned in my earlier post that Fallon’s position on other issues (besides the ones mentioned in these mailers) run counter to the interests of Brannan, a developer.

If anyone has information about other donors who are funding the Independent Voices group, please either put up a comment in this thread or e-mail me confidentially at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

UPDATE: The fliers sent by Independent Voices are discussed in this article from Thursday’s Des Moines Register:

Fallon supports ethanol subsidies, although he has said corn-based ethanol is not a permanent solution to weaning the United States off imported petroleum. “Corn-based ethanol is a step in the right direction, but it’s not the end of that journey,” Fallon said.

The mailers list the group’s chairman as Red Brannan, an Ankeny Democrat and former member of the Polk County Board of Supervisors. Aides to Boswell said Brannan has not made financial contributions to the campaign. Attempts to reach Brannan Wednesday evening were unsuccessful.

I believe that Brannan has not donated directly to Boswell’s campaign, because I couldn’t find his name when I searched for it at Open Secrets.

Remember, a person can make unlimited donations to a group like Independent Voices, whereas contributions to a Congressional campaign are capped at $2,300 for the primary and $2,300 for the general election.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board slammed the first mailing from Independent Voices as “the cheapest of cheap shots” and has called on Boswell to reject the tactics used by Brannan’s group.

No time for a long post now, but you can read the Des Moines Register’s endorsement of Becky Greenwald here.

I had a feeling they would go that way.

Let’s try to keep it civil, people. The editorial board had nice things to say about all the candidates.

If anyone attends tonight’s candidate forum in Ames, please put up a diary afterwards.

When the Des Moines Register headlined its endorsement of Ed Fallon “Unleash Fallon’s Energy in Congress,” it reminded me that I have not yet transcribed the Fallon campaign’s main piece of literature.

Chase Martyn suggested today that Fallon’s campaign has “spent more on printing its glossy, full-color brochures than it probably should have, considering it has not yet sent out districtwide direct mail.” That may be true, but Fallon volunteers and staffers have been handing out this 11 by 16-inch tri-fold while canvassing or tabling at public events for months. Thousands of Democrats in the district would have received it by now.

After the jump I’ve transcribed the brochure that lays out the central arguments of the Fallon campaign.

An 8 1/2 by 11 direct-mail piece arrived in the mail today from a 527 group called Independent Voices. On one side there’s a big photo of a man in an orange jump suit labeled “PRISONER,” who is looking through a chain-link fence at a group of children. The text reads

Why Does Ed Fallon Think It’s O.K. For Sex Offenders to Live Near Schools?

Ed Fallon voted to allow sex offenders to live within 2,000 feet of our schools and day care centers

At the bottom in small print it says, “Paid for by Independent Voices, Red Brannan Chair”

The other side has the same photo of the prisoner, with a large photo of Ed Fallon and the following text superimposed:

Fallon Cast the Only Vote To Allow Sex Offenders to Live Near our Schools

Associated Press      October 14, 2005

Fallon concedes he is the only lawmaker who opposed the restrictions.

“There was a fear that if we don’t support this bill we’ll be viewed as weak on crime.”

Parents know how many challenges kids face after they leave the house for school. Ed Fallon thought it was more important to cast his vote to make a political statement than to cast a vote that protects our kids from these dangerous predators. That’s not the help our kids need.

Call Ed at 515.277.0424

Tell Ed that sex offenders shouldn’t be living next to our schools.

First, it’s important to note that Red Brannan is a developer who disagrees with Fallon’s stands on reducing urban sprawl and curbing abuses of eminent domain. Brannan and many other developers would like to see a four-lane beltway constructed through a rural area in northeast Polk County. Boswell is committed to seeking federal funding for this project, which would require hundreds of millions of dollars in public spending. Fallon opposes the northeast Polk County beltway for various reasons; it’s a bad use of federal transportation dollars and would be bad for the environment as well.

But let’s take this mailer at face value and assume that Red Brannan and the rest of the financial backers of this 527 group really are bent out of shape over Fallon’s vote on the sex offender residency restriction law.

There are two kinds of laws: those that address a problem, and those that give a politically convenient appearance of addressing a problem.

At least 22 states have barred sex offenders from living within a certain distance of schools, but it’s misleading to suggest that those laws do anything to protect children from predators:

But residency restrictions for sex offenders not only don’t seem to be working as promised, there’s some indication that by hindering smarter practices they help increase the danger of molestation. And despite their popularity with lawmakers and the public, they have not been universally embraced, even by those in the law enforcement community. A January 2007 resolution passed by the American Correctional Association declares, “There is no evidence to support the efficacy of broadly applied residential restrictions on sex offenders.” A 2006 statement issued by the Iowa County Attorneys Association on that state’s residency restriction requirements takes a similar view, asserting, “There is no demonstrated protective effect of the residency requirement that justifies the huge draining of scarce law enforcement resources in the effort to enforce the restriction.”

Got that? They do nothing to reduce crimes against children and drain resources away from law enforcement.

Not only that, prosecutors and advocates for missing and exploited children agree on the uselessness of such laws:

In Iowa, which in 2002 became one of the first states to impose residency restrictions, police and prosecutors have united in opposition to the law, saying that it drives offenders underground and that there is “no demonstrated protective effect,” according to a statement by the Iowa County Attorneys Association, which represents prosecutors.

“The law was well-intentioned, but we don’t see any evidence of a connection between where a person lives and where they might offend,” said Corwin R. Ritchie, executive director of the group.

Enforcing the law consumes lots of law enforcement time, he said, and leads some offenders to list interstate rest stops or Wal-Mart parking lots as their addresses.

“Our concern is that these laws may give a false sense of security,” said Carolyn Atwell-Davis, director of legislative affairs for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. “We’re not aware of any evidence that residency restrictions have prevented a child from being victimized.”

So while the mailer accuses Fallon of casting his vote “to make a political statement,” the opposite is true: all of the other legislators who voted for this bill were making a political statement rather than doing something real to help protect children and support law enforcement efforts.

One reason Fallon is so unpopular with the legislative leadership is that he refused to go along with this kind of phony “solution” when he was in the Iowa House.

The irony is that in its endorsement of Fallon, the Des Moines Register mentioned this very vote as an example of how he was “frequently on the right side of issues.” The editorial board noted that the residency restriction has driven up costs for law enforcement while making it more difficult for them to track sex offenders.

But I’m not surprised that a group of Boswell backers resorted to this misleading line of attack. Anything that diverts voters’ attention from Boswell’s voting record, which is out of step with the Democrats he represents, can’t be bad for the incumbent.

I have no idea whether this mailer will significantly increase support for Boswell or whether it will primarily make Fallon’s supporters that much more determined to get out the vote.

No time for a long post now, but you can read the Register’s endorsement of Fallon here.

The same editorial board that picked Hillary Clinton because of her experience and knowledge of the issues wasn’t impressed by Leonard Boswell.

Time for new energy in Congress.

The Register will endorse a candidate in the fourth district primary tomorrow.

Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign finally released some results from its internal polling today. An e-mail from campaign manager Scott Ourth said that according to a survey by Anzalone Liszt Research, 65 percent of likely primary voters would vote for Boswell.

If Boswell did win 65 percent of the vote on June 3, he would do slightly better than 8-year incumbent Jane Harman did in the 2006 primary to represent California’s 36th district. Harman, who like Boswell was backed by pretty much the whole state Democratic Party establishment, defeated peace activist Marcy Winograd by 62.4 percent to 37.5 percent.

The e-mail from the Boswell campaign did not contain details such as:

-which days the poll was in the field

-the number of respondents surveyed

-what criteria were used to code a respondent as a likely voter

-the pollster’s projected turnout for June 3

-support for the candidates among men vs. women and in various age groups

-the percent for Ed Fallon versus undecided.

I have asked for more information about the poll and will update this post if I receive answers from the Boswell campaign.

It mentioned that 63 percent of those who attended the Iowa caucuses in January said they would vote for Boswell if the election were held today–though it is not clear from the e-mail whether those who attended caucuses were automatically included in the likely voter pool for the primary.

About 58,000 people in Iowa’s third district attended Democratic caucuses on January 3. Only about 38,000 people in the third district voted in the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial primary.

I have not heard any projections from the Boswell campaign about how many people they expect to turn out on June 3.

Ourth’s e-mail alludes to mailing in early ballots. Presumably there has been an extensive effort to get supporters to return absentee ballots. Fallon’s campaign has also been urging supporters to vote early.

The e-mail also boasts that Boswell doubled Fallon’s fundraising during the latest reporting period, from April 1 to May 14. It links to this report from the Des Moines Register:

Federal Election Commission records show that Boswell, of Des Moines, took in more than $180,000 in contributions between April 1 and May 14. Of that sum, $93,000 came from political action committees, or a little more than half of his total donations.

Boswell, who’s been in office since 1996 and sits on the House agriculture and transportation committees, reported $709,000 cash on hand. He spent $311,000 during the period battling Fallon.

Fallon, also of Des Moines, reported that he collected nearly $73,000, including a $25 contribution from his own pocket. Fallon has been endorsed by groups such as Democracy for America that have assisted him in gaining individual contributions on the Internet, which he has needed since he does not accept PAC money.

Fallon spent about $64,000 during the period and said he had about $28,000 cash on hand by May 14.

Fallon’s campaign strategy has focused on building a strong field operation. During his liveblog session at the EENR blog today, he expressed optimism based on his campaign’s direct voter contacts, and mentioned that yesterday alone the campaign had over 2,200 phone calls and door knocks. Lacking the money to match Boswell’s spending on direct-mail and advertising, Fallon’s chance to pull off an upset depends on the success of his efforts to identify and turn out supporters.

As for the issues, Boswell is still trying to downplay differences between himself and Fallon, telling a reporter for the weekly Cityview,

“If you look at the issues, there’s just not a lot of difference between us,” Boswell said. “He’s taking things out of context and trying to conjure up differences that don’t exist.”

That same article quotes Boswell as promising to support the winner of the primary, which is the first time I’ve heard him make that pledge. He must be feeling very confident, since earlier this spring his campaign would not give me an unequivocal statement promising to support the winner of the primary.

Meanwhile, Boswell’s Congressional office will not take my phone calls or return my voice mail messages seeking clarification of his stand on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. More background on that issue is in this post.

If Boswell has quietly agreed to go along with Republican efforts to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies, despite his public stand with House Democrats on this issue in March, the voters of the third district deserve to know about it.

The full text of today’s e-mail from campaign manager Scott Ourth is after the jump.

If you’re reading this diary before 1 pm, there is still time to click over and ask a question:

http://www.eenrblog.com/showDi…

Otherwise, you can click the link later to read the transcript of the liveblog session.

I have obtained a direct-mail piece that Becky Greenwald’s campaign has sent out before the June 3 primary in the fourth Congressional district. I don’t know how large a universe received this mailer–whether it was just Democrats who are reliable voters, all Democrats, or also included voters not registered as Democrats.

I’ve described the visuals of the mailer and transcribed the text after the jump. It’s an interesting combination of the personal and the political, with the look of a family scrapbook.

I hope that Bleeding Heartland readers in the fourth district will tell us about any other direct-mail pieces or door-hangers you have received from Democrats hoping to take on Latham.

If you scan the images into a diary, or transcribe the text and describe the visuals, I will promote your diary to the front page.

Join me after the jump for more on “The Girl Next Door.”

We took the kids to the Omaha Zoo today and got home too late for me to participate in Kevin Miskell’s liveblog session at the EENR blog.

Some background and the first few questions are in this post:

http://www.eenrblog.com/showDi…

The rest of the Q and A is here:

http://www.eenrblog.com/showDi…

Tomorrow (Thursday) Ed Fallon is liveblogging at EENR between noon and 1 pm. If you want to ask him some questions, go here:

http://www.eenrblog.com

While you’re there, check out the other diaries. For the most part, the EENR blog focuses on issues rather than candidates, and a lot of good substantive diaries are posted there.

Ed Fallon has again emphasized agricultural policy in his campaign against Congressman Leonard Boswell.

Contact: Stacy Brenton

Fallon for Congress

(515) 822-3029

stacy@fallonforcongress.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Fallon Kicks Off ‘New Energy for Iowa Tour’

Proposes National CAFO Moratorium

Monday, May 19, 2008 – Today in Des Moines, Ed Fallon kicked off his ‘New Energy for Iowa Tour’ with an announcement that if elected to Congress, Fallon would propose a national moratorium on hog confinements built by big corporations. Fallon sees this as a critical step toward restoring vitality to rural areas suffering from the loss of populations, farm employment and economic development.”

Fallon says, “Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) are having an adverse effect on the environment, agriculture, health and local farm and business operations. We need to stop the consolidation and explosion of this industry and renew our commitment to growing a sustainable economy and quality of life in rural Iowa. I commit to leading the way on this issue in Washington, given the lack of leadership here at the state level.”

Fallon and Boswell have drawn contrasts with one another on farm policy several times during this campaign. In general, Boswell is happy with current federal agriculture policies and is proud of his work on them, while Fallon is not satisfied with the priorities that guide current agriculture policies.

Fallon is right to say CAFOs should be a federal concern, because there appears to be little hope of making progress on regulating them at the state level.

Meanwhile, evidence is mounting that CAFOs incur huge hidden costs on society.

For more on why Fallon is right on this issue, read the final report from the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production and this recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, “CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations.”

Democracy for America, which endorsed Ed Fallon in February, has sent out another e-mail supporting his candidacy to its members:

Dear [desmoinesdem],

How many times this year did you wake up and say to yourself: America needs more from our elected Democrats?

I’ve said it too many times to count. That’s why our Primaries Matter campaigns are so important.

When Donna Edwards sent Bush Democrat Al Wynn packing a few months ago, we shook the establishment and sent a message to Democrats in Congress: move America forward or move out of Washington.

Now, Ed Fallon is working to beat Bush Democrat Leonard Boswell on June 3 in the Iowa primary and Rep. Boswell is running scared.

CONTRIBUTE $30 RIGHT NOW

How do we know we have this Bush Democrat on the ropes?

Well it’s not just the desperate Washington-style attack ads Boswell is running to distort Ed’s record. And it isn’t just the favors Boswell called in to get his beltway friends raising money in a panic for the campaign.

It’s the Boswell record that tells the real story of this campaign:

Boswell used to vote for the war and every chance to fund it.

Since Ed Fallon challenged him, Boswell votes against it.

Boswell used to vote for illegal spying on Americans.

Since Ed Fallon challenged him, Boswell votes against it.

But it’s clear that turning Rep. Boswell into some sort of “Ed Fallon-Lite” isn’t going to cut it. We need a real progressive in office who will stand with his constituents all the time — not just when it’s politically convenient.

With your contribution today, our victory in June will wake up Congress and send the message: Shape up or ship out.

Take Ed Fallon over the top: CONTRIBUTE $30 NOW

Thank you for taking action today,

-Charles

Charles Chamberlain

Political Director

Democracy for America’s appeal in February generated donations from more than 1,000 individuals. I’ll be watching the Act Blue page over the next day or so to see how they do this time.

For more information on the differences between Fallon and Boswell on the issues, click here.

For more on Boswell’s voting record in Congress, check out this website created by Progressive Kick.

A little more than two weeks before the Democratic primary in Iowa’s third Congressional district, Ed Fallon has challenged Congressman Leonard Boswell to shift his support as a superdelegate from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.

It’s a shrewd move for several reasons.

First, Iowa’s third district went for Obama in January, as yesterday’s press release from Fallon underscores:

Fallon says, “Even though Hillary Clinton finished behind Barack Obama and John Edwards in the Third Congressional District, Congressman Boswell continues to ignore the will of the majority by saying he will cast his superdelegate vote for Clinton.”

Fallon worked with John Edwards through the Iowa Caucuses and then endorsed Barack Obama in February. Fallon says, “Both Obama and Edwards are people whose principles reflect my belief that we need to get big money out of politics and stand up to the special interests to accomplish real change in this country. It’s time to come together and focus on defeating John McCain in November.”

As I’ve written before, Fallon yard signs are often seen in the same yards as the Obama “HOPE” signs, while Boswell’s yard signs are frequently paired with Hillary signs.

Any further publicity that aligns Fallon with Obama, and Boswell with Clinton, can’t hurt the challenger and may even sway some undecided Democrats.

Second, Obama is coming back to Des Moines this Tuesday for a victory rally on the night when he is expected to win a majority of the Democratic Party’s pledged delegates. This will surely be a big media event.

Fallon spoke at a Nation for Change rally supporting Obama in Des Moines last month. Whether or not Fallon is able to address the crowd this coming Tuesday, Obama’s visit may generate some media coverage about which prominent Iowans are supporting Obama, and which are still with Clinton.

Third, since Boswell has rejected all invitations to debate, Fallon will not have many more opportunities to trip up the incumbent before the June 3 primary. Challenging Boswell to back Obama is a way to shift the media narrative.

Speaking of debates, Boswell has said he could not spare the time for them because he is too busy working on the farm bill and other legislation. But Congress has already sent the farm bill to President Bush and is likely to be in recess during the last week in May. It’s too bad that Boswell can’t be straightforward about his reasons for not debating Fallon.

A final note before I end this post: after trying for more than a week, I have so far been unable to get any comment from Boswell’s campaign or his Congressional office on whether Boswell was the Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who on May 8 supported a Republican effort to add the Senate version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (which includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies) to the fiscal 2009 Intelligence authorization bill.

I am still trying to get someone who works for Boswell to confirm or deny this speculation and will bring you up to date on this soon.

Whoever wins the June 3 primary to represent Iowa’s third district, I think we all should agree that facing a primary challenge has nudged Congressman Leonard Boswell in some good directions. Not only has he come on board with federal legislation he didn’t back in the past (such as the Safe Climate Act), he has also stepped up his constituent service.

The Des Moines Register ran this article on Friday about Windsor Heights moving closer to getting a unique zip code for its residents:

Windsor Heights, which is surrounded completely by other cities, shares the ZIP codes of 50311, 50312 and 50322 with neighboring Des Moines and Urbandale.

Boswell in January introduced legislation, at the urging of Windsor Heights officials, that directs the postal service to designate a unique ZIP code for the city. Iowa Sens. Charles Grassley, a Republican, and Tom Harkin, a Democrat, introduced companion legislation in the U.S. Senate.

Windsor Heights spearheaded a crusade 10 years ago to secure a unique ZIP code for the community, where problems with mail deliveries have irritated residents for years.

Catch that? They’ve been working on this for 10 years. I know Windsor Heights residents who asked Boswell or his staffers years ago to help us get a zip code.

Windsor Heights officials get about 50 complaints a year about the city’s lack of a unique ZIP code. The issue is the top one residents complain about, city officials said.

[City administrator Marketa] Oliver praised the “dogged perseverance” of city leaders in getting the postal service to conduct the survey.

“When I heard, I went ‘Woo hoo,’ ” she said.

Mayor Jerry Sullivan contributed the announcement to support from the Iowa Congressional delegation.

“Leonard (Boswell), if he hadn’t spearheaded this for us, we wouldn’t have gotten to where we are today,” Sullivan said.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Boswell took the initiative on this issue right after Ed Fallon declared he was running for Congress.

This morning my family attended the annual pancake breakfast run by the Windsor Heights firefighters, and a person who has served on the city council agreed with me that we wouldn’t have made progress toward getting a zip code if it were not an election year.

I have no idea whether Windsor Heights’ three precincts will go for Boswell or Fallon on June 3, but I think all of the suburb’s residents should be glad the incumbent has been extra motivated to deliver to constituents lately.

On Friday, Marc Ambinder asked, “Didn’t Democrats scoff when Howard Dean and the DNC put money into Mississippi?”

He’s referring to the flap that erupted two years ago when some Democrats complained that Dean was putting too much money into rebuilding the state Democratic parties. Of course, that’s just what Dean had promised to do when he was running for DNC chairman.

Markos gave us this flashback from May 11, 2006. The speaker is Paul Begala, a Democrat from the Clinton wing of the party, on CNN:

   BLITZER: Very quickly, is Howard Dean in trouble?

   BEGALA: No. I think Candy’s report was spot on.

   He — yes, he’s in trouble, in that campaign managers, candidates, are really angry with him. He has raised $74 million and spent $64 million. He says it’s a long-term strategy. But what he has spent it on, apparently, is just hiring a bunch of staff people to wander around Utah and Mississippi and pick their nose. That’s not how you build a party. You win elections. That’s how you build a party.

Now that a Democrat has won a special election in a heavily Republican Congressional district in Mississippi, I guess we all know who was right two years ago.

The campaigns of Congressman Leonard Boswell and challenger Ed Fallon put out very different statements about ethanol on Thursday.

This isn’t the first time the candidates have clashed over agriculture policy. In general, Boswell is happy with our federal farm policies and touts how hard he is working to keep them the way they are.

Fallon would like to see a shift toward more support of local food networks and sustainable agriculture, as well as more regulations to address the economic, public health and environmental problems caused by confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

Join me after the jump for more discussion of the ethanol issue.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board met separately with each of four Democratic candidates seeking to run against Tom Latham in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district. It will probably be another week or two before that newspaper endorses a candidate.

In the meantime, the news report on the interviews focused on their general agreement regarding the Bush administration’s tax breaks for the wealthy.

I would think that fourth district Democrats need to know more about the differences between these candidates. Are there any significant federal policies on which they disagree? Which committees would they want to serve on in Congress? Would they have a different strategy for running against Latham, or bring a unique strength to the table in the general election?

As I’ve written before, I am staying neutral in the IA-04 primary, but the winner will get $100 from me. I would love to get Latham out of Congress this year, or at least make him work so hard that he seriously considers retiring before the 2010 election.

As Memorial Day nears and the death toll continues to climb in Iraq, most Democrats are united in our determination to extract our troops from Iraq safely and swiftly.  As important as withdrawing our troops is how we care for the troops upon their return home.  Yesterday I had the pleasure of speaking with retired veterans at the Iowa Veterans Home in Marshalltown about exactly that – how America should, and can, honor our veterans.  

I got an e-mail from Ed Fallon’s campaign that contrasts Fallon’s “personal commitment” to transportation by bicycle with Congressman Leonard Boswell’s “photo-op” Bike to Work event on Monday morning:

Ed has been riding his bike as a consistent form of transportation for years. It’s his way of demonstrating his personal commitment and responsibility for reducing his carbon footprint.

The e-mail then shows a photo of Fallon “arriving by bike at his campaign office in the February snow,” as well as a photo of Boswell riding his bicycle on Monday, which the incumbent e-mailed to constituents:

Personal commitment or photo op?

You decide!

Speaking of Bike to Work Week, Fallon will be at the Handlebar Happy Hour on Friday at 5 pm at the El Bait Shop, 200 SW 2nd St, Des Moines.

Now, do I think Fallon would represent me better in Congress because he rides a bicycle regularly? No, but I do have confidence that because of this experience, he understands the need to make our roads more bike-friendly.

I know many people who are afraid to run errands on their bikes, but would consider it if there were bike lanes on more streets in the Des Moines area.

Although Boswell has served on the House Transportation Committee for some time, I have not seen any commitment from him to promoting “complete streets” that encourage travel by foot and by bicycle as well as by car.

I don’t care how often Boswell uses his bicycle as long as he gets behind the Safe and Complete Streets bill that Representative Doris Matsui recently introduced in the House. Tom Harkin has already introduced a similar bill in the U.S. Senate.

Hillary Clinton trounced Barack Obama in West Virginia. With 95 percent reporting, she has 67 percent and he has 26 percent. Clinton received approximately 140,000 more votes than Obama. I don’t know why John Edwards was still on the ballot in WV, but he seems to have gotten almost 7 percent of the vote.

In her victory speech, Hillary mentioned Dalton Hatfield, an 11-year-old from Kentucky who sold his bike and video games to donate about $400 to the Clinton campaign. This prompted an Obama supporter to post an idiotic diary at Daily Kos, suggesting that Hillary had “sunk lower” than Richard Nixon did when he delivered his famous “Checkers” speech in 1952.

Clinton supporter Trix had the ultimate comeback:

 Something tells me that… (11+ / 0-)

Recommended by:

   Rimjob, dhonig, wader, desmoinesdem, homogenius, Lying eyes, rcald, Mikesco, Barry in MIA, lineatus, Namtrix

if this were a story about a kid selling his bike to donate the proceeds to Obama, you’d be going on and on about how inspiring Obama is to children.

Hillary Clinton turned me into a newt. I got better.

by Trix on Tue May 13, 2008 at 08:13:56 PM PDT

On the Republican side, John McCain only managed about 76 percent of the vote in WV, with 10 percent going for Mike Huckabee and 5 percent choosing Ron Paul.

I have to agree with isucyclones94, though, who commented in the previous thread that Democrat Travis Childers’ victory in the special election in Mississippi’s first Congressional district is the biggest story of the night.

This is a district with a partisan index of R+10, and the Republicans worked hard to link Childers to Obama and Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

Yet Childers won by a margin of 54-46. I totally agree with Jonathan Singer’s take on this outcome:

  1. I don’t want to go so far as to say that this is the end of the Republican Party, because it’s not. But this is as bad news as the GOP could possibly get at this point. They lost a district that leans 6 points more Republican than the nation as a whole in Illinois in March. They lost a district that leans 7 points more Republican than the nation as a whole earlier this month in Louisiana. Now they lost a district that leans 10 points more Republican than the nation as a whole in Mississippi. If they can’t win in Mississippi’s first congressional district, where can they win?

  2. The Republicans tried to make this election about two people: Barack Obama and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And despite running this type of campaign, they lost. While it is true that Childers distanced himself from his party (and implicitly from Obama), the fact is that the Obama/Wright smears simply DID NOT WORK. The Republicans are going to have to get a new game plan, and the establishment media are going to have to get a new meme. Sorry folks.

The head of the National Republican Congressional Committee didn’t even try to spin the loss (click the link for his full statement).

Also, in the Democratic primary for the open U.S. Senate seat from Nebraska, netroots hero Scott Kleeb beat Tony Raimondo by a large margin, 68-25. Kleeb came pretty close to winning Nebraska’s third Congressional district in 2006, despite a very strong Republican tilt in that district. Raimondo is a Republican who switched parties just so he could run for the U.S. Senate. Good for Kleeb.

In a state as red as Nebraska, Republicans are favored to hold this Senate seat, but Kleeb will make them work for it.

For whatever reason, Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign website (http://www.boswellforcongress.com) doesn’t seem to list upcoming events in the district anywhere, so I don’t always know when he plans to be in town. (Please correct me if there’s a page on the site I have missed–I’ve looked for an events calendar.)

Most candidates are happy to publicize upcoming local events. Maybe Boswell doesn’t want to call attention to his visits to the district because they undercut his claim that he is too busy working in Washington to debate Ed Fallon.  

I know he had a Bike to Work week event in Des Moines on Monday morning, and I heard he had some kind of event at Prairie Meadows the same day, but I don’t know if it was a campaign appearance or a fundraiser.

If you have heard about an event Boswell is holding in the district, please post a comment or a diary.

I am not a regular at Firedoglake, so I didn’t realize that Ed Fallon was liveblogging there on Saturday morning.

A lot of interesting questions about Fallon, Boswell and the district were asked and answered, so I recommend clicking here to read the thread.

Thanks to Bob in AZ for reminding me about the liveblog.

I got a fundraising e-mail yesterday from Tom Harkin’s campaign manager, Jeff Link. He is trying to convince me that the third Republican to start campaigning against Harkin, former State Representative George Eichhorn, is a real threat to the four-term incumbent because he “released a list of 33 prominent Republicans” who have endorsed him.

For more information on Eichhorn, check out his campaign website or click here for more about his official announcement this week.

With all due respect to Eichhorn, I can’t see how he could possibly build up enough name recognition and support in the next six months to defeat Harkin in what is likely to be a banner year for Democrats in the Congressional races.

I understand that raising money is part of a campaign manager’s job, but let’s face some facts. Harkin’s campaign started the year with more than $3 million cash on hand. His approval/disapproval rating in April 2008 was 55/38 according to Survey USA, prompting the “Senate Guru” (who runs a great blog) to declare Harkin “as safe as they come.”

Other analyses declaring Harkin’s seat safe include about.com’s US politics rankings and CQ Politics.

So don’t take this the wrong way, Senator Harkin, but the $35 I spent on my steak fry ticket last September was the last money you’ll see from me for a long while.

As I’ve said, I am directing my campaign contributions to races where it might make a difference.

The full text of the e-mail from Jeff Link is after the jump.

Matt Stoller put up a post at Open Left today regarding the latest attempt to get retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies into the House version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

As you may recall, the Senate version of the FISA bill includes retroactive immunity for telecoms. House Democrats have so far beaten back several attempts to add that provision to the House version of the FISA bill.

On Thursday, May 8, one of the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee tried to get the Senate version of the FISA bill added to the fiscal 2009 Intelligence authorization bill. That effort was defeated by a vote of 11-10.

However, twelve Democrats serve on the House Intelligence Committee, which means that one of them voted with the nine Republicans to try to get telecom immunity in the FISA bill.

The question is whether the Democrat who voted with Republicans was our own Congressman Leonard Boswell. He is one of two likely suspects, because he and Bud Cramer (AL-05) were the only two Democrats on this committee to sign a letter in February advocating retroactive immunity for telecoms in the House version of the FISA bill.

In March, Boswell changed his position and stood with the majority of House Democrats who do not want to grant telecoms immunity in the FISA bill.

Democrats in the third district deserve to know whether Boswell has quietly reverted to his initial position, in favor of telecom immunity. According to the Open Secrets website, Boswell’s PAC contributions for the 2007/2008 election cycle alone include $10,000 from AT&T and $2,000 from Verizon.

I am trying to get a comment on this from the Boswell campaign, and I will update this diary if and when I hear back from them.