Campaigns against incumbents are never easy, but Iowa’s fourth Congressional district is very winnable for Becky Greenwald.

When you run for office, certain things are out of your control, like the nationwide political climate or the partisan makeup of the electorate.

Greenwald is fortunate to be challenging Representative Tom Latham this year, when Democrats have their first registration edge in the fourth district since it was redrawn. According to the June 2008 numbers released by the Secretary of State’s office, the fourth district has 128,482 registered Democrats, 120,694 registered Republicans, and 145,223 voters registered with no party affiliation. Also, the national political climate is favorable to Democrats. IA-04 has a partisan index of D+0, meaning that its vote in 2004 closely matched the nationwide partisan split.

Latham told Iowa Independent that Republicans can win this year’s elections by focusing on high gas prices and the Iraq War. However, the National Republican Congressional Committee, which exists to elect Republicans to the U.S. House, has given GOP incumbents very different advice: run on personal and local issues. An NRCC strategy document notes that Republican candidates who lost special Congressional elections this year did not establish “themselves and their local brand in contrast to the negative perception of the national GOP.”

If fourth district residents let national issues guide their votes down-ticket, Greenwald will do well to keep tying Latham to the Iraq War and leadership of the Republican Party.

So what’s standing in her way? The biggest advantage of incumbency is often money, and this race is no exception.

Charlotte Eby, a commentator for the Mason City Globe-Gazette, assessed this race in a recent column:

After the record-breaking turnout at the Iowa caucuses, the Democratic Party has amassed a voter registration advantage that has grown to more than 90,000 in Iowa.

Democrats also will have presidential candidate Barack Obama and U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin at the top of the ticket to help drive turnout. […]

Latham’s had strong Democratic challengers in the past that he’s been able to fend off. But his district, which includes Mason City, Ames and suburban counties surrounding Des Moines, has become more of a swing district as Democratic registration has swelled. Democrats now outnumber Republicans in the district for the first time ever.

Watch for Greenwald’s campaign to paint Latham as a Republican in lockstep with Bush administration policies, a record that might not be popular with the changing electorate.

First though, Greenwald will have to raise enough money to compete with Latham’s war chest, which sat at more than $700,000 as of the last filing period.

If Greenwald is competitive in raising money, the 4th District race could be the race to watch this fall.

David Yepsen’s latest column in the Des Moines Register reaches the same conclusion:

The key for Democrat Greenwald, a 55-year-old former Garst and Pioneer marketing executive from Perry, is money. Will national Democratic money sources – especially Emily’s List – pour dollars into her contest with Latham?

To get them to make that investment, Greenwald must first convince them she’s viable and has got a credible financial base of her own.

So far, it’s been an uphill task. According to the latest campaign-finance disclosure reports, Greenwald had only $81,800 in the bank on June 30. Latham had 10 times that amount: $832,388. Greenwald had to get through a four-way primary in June, then had to suspend fundraising in Iowa during the floods. Donors in the Democratic money centers of Des Moines, Iowa City and Cedar Rapids were preoccupied.

Raising money isn’t the easiest task in the world, but candidates have more control over fundraising than they do over massive shifts toward the other party on various issues and among many different demographic groups.

Rarely can a challenger raise enough cash to match the incumbent’s spending dollar for dollar. But when the wind is at your back, that often isn’t necessary.

Upsets happen in big landslide years. Just look at what happened to Neal Smith, who had represented Iowa’s fourth district since 1958 until Greg Ganske brought him down in the 1994 Republican landslide. Smith had more seniority and clout in 1994 than Latham has now. I couldn’t find information about the candidates’ spending in that race, because the Open Secrets database doesn’t go back that far. But I’ll bet that Ganske did not win by raising more money than Smith. Ganske was boosted by a national Republican wave and partisan shifts following the 1990 census and redistricting.

Greenwald has a big cash-on-hand disadvantage now, but her campaign has been working hard to raise money in July. I’ve received e-mails from personal friends asking me to donate, as well as two letters from the campaign (one signed by Tom Harkin, Leonard Boswell and Bruce Braley, the other signed by Tom and Christie Vilsack).

I’ve already given to her campaign, but my husband and I are digging deeper to donate again this month.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has not reserved any air time in Iowa yet, but they are watching this race, as is EMILY’s list, which seeks to elect pro-choice, Democratic women at all levels of government.

I expect one or both of those groups to get involved in the IA-04 race, assuming Greenwald produces strong numbers this month. The Des Moines and Mason City media markets are not that expensive, compared to districts where many other challengers need to purchase paid media.

The infrastructure will be there to support heavy Democratic turnout in this district. Barack Obama’s campaign has already opened four field offices in IA-04, with a fifth office planned.

Also, the fourth district has been receptive to strong Democratic candidates in recent years. Speaking to Iowa Independent two weeks ago, Greenwald made this point:

“This is not a campaign that was launched on a whim,” she said. “This is not just a campaign that’s based on hope that I’ll do well. Sen. Harkin won 28 of the 28 counties in the 4th District in 2002. The 4th District is the only district in Iowa in which he carried every single county. Gov. Culver, when he ran in 2006, carried 22 of the 28 counties in the 4th District.”

Please donate to Greenwald’s campaign before the end of July.

UPDATE: I didn’t realize Karl Rove was coming to Des Moines today to raise money for Latham. A press release from Greenwald’s campaign is after the jump. Also, you can view this YouTube she taped in response to Rove’s visit:

I love how Greenwald referred to Rove in this clip: “Today, Karl Rove, the man who is too busy to even testify before Congress, is going to be in Iowa raising money for Tom Latham.”

If you’d like to meet Rob Hubler, the man trying to spare Iowans two more years with Steve King in Congress, you’ve got plenty of chances on the county fair circuit this weekend:

Thursday, July 24

1:30 p.m.  Harrison County Fair, Missouri Valley

4:30 p. m. Page County Fair, Clarinda

7:00 p.m.  Union County Fair, Afton

Friday, July 25

12 noon   Adair County Fair, Greenfield

2:15 p.m. Audubon County Fair, Aubudon

      (Aububon fundraiser in evening)

Saturday, July 26

12 noon   Sac County Fair, Sac City

3 p.m.     Plymouth County Fair, LeMars

6 p.m.    Pottawattamie County Fair (Westfair), Council Bluffs

        (Council Bluffs fundraiser in evening)

Sunday, July 27

12 noon    Cass County Fair, Atlantic

5:30 p.m.  Clarke County Fair, Osceola

If you want more details about either of the fundraisers, you can call the Hubler campaign headquarters for information or to RSVP: 712-352-2077

For your reading enjoyment, I give you Texas Nate’s latest diary: King embarrasses Iowa, self again

This guy is all class.

According to the Des Moines Register, about 160 immigrants face deportation “because their U.S. citizen spouses died less than two years after their marriages and before the survivors’ permanent residency applications were approved.”

A bipartisan group in Congress, including some conservative Republicans, is trying to change the law so that these widows’ and widowers’ residency applications can be reviewed individually. Otherwise these unfortunate people are forced to fight deportation while also dealing with a bereavement and in some cases looking after children.

Who’s the one person loudly objecting to this law? None other than fifth district Representative Steve King. In addition to being generally concerned about our “runaway immigration policy,” he has specific problems with the bill:

King also said more protections were needed to ensure immigrant spouses have good moral character or that they planned to come to the United States prior to the spouse’s death.

“A soldier, man or woman, could get drunk in Bangkok, wake up in the morning and be married, as will happen sometimes in places like Las Vegas or Bangkok, be killed the next day, and the spouse who was a product of the evening’s celebration would have then a right to claim access to come to the United States on a green card,” King said.

Remember, this bill would have U.S. immigration officials review applications on a case-by-case basis. I doubt a marriage of drunk people who barely knew each other would be deemed legitimate.

Anyway,

He said he agreed with the sentiment in the bill but Congress cannot take care of “every sad story that we have and if we do that, we are going to create a lot more sad stories in the United States from the people that will take advantage.”

His position has befuddled advocates of changing the penalty […].

“I’ve never come across anybody who actually voiced opposition,” said Brent Renison, an Oregon immigration lawyer […].

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who sponsored the bill in committee, said the “widow penalty” is one of the top reasons for private relief bills in Congress.

But why do something humane that will also save members of Congress the time they spend on passing these private relief bills?

Better to continue making a name for yourself as the guy who can always think of a reason not to help immigrants.

If Congressman Steve King hadn’t already won the “jackass award,” someone would need to give it to him for the way he behaved at a House Judiciary Committee hearing this week.

It’s no secret that King isn’t interested in the Congress serving as a check or balance on executive power. As we saw just a few weeks ago, King believes former White House spokesman Scott McClellan could have “done this country a favor” by keeping his mouth shut about alleged lawbreaking and lying in the Bush administration.

Apparently not satisfied with his efforts to sidetrack the McClellan hearings, King used one parliamentary trick after another on Tuesday to prevent Democrats on the Judiciary Committee from effectively questioning Douglas Feith, the former number three Pentagon official.

You really have to click over to Dana Milbank’s story for the Washington Post and read the whole thing to fully grasp how disgracefully King behaved. He and Congressman Darrell Issa (the wallet behind the recall of California Governor Gray Davis a few years back) were so disruptive that, according to Milbank, “Three and a half hours later, Feith had become but an asterisk at what was supposed to be his hanging.”

Not that it’s any big deal–Feith was only a key architect of the Bush administration’s policy on torture and false claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

As usual, King appears to be proud of his outrageous behavior. I learned from this piece by Douglas Burns that King’s campaign has prominently featured Milbank’s article on the incumbent’s website.

Incidentally, as far as I can tell, King’s campaign site ripped off Milbank’s whole article, rather than posting a link to the Washington Post site with an short excerpt. Are members of Congress subject to copyright law?

Anyway, King is proud to stand in the way of meaningful Congressional oversight of the executive branch. But don’t get the wrong idea. He doesn’t believe Congress should be powerless. Iowa Guy 2.0 recently reminded me that King went on record three years ago saying Congress could abolish federal courts, cut their funding or instruct the Department of Justice not to enforce court rulings if judges didn’t behave.

Separation of powers seems to be too difficult a concept for King to grasp.

Getting rid of King would not only benefit the residents of Iowa’s fifth district, but would also further the cause of proper Congressional oversight. Please kick in some cash to Rob Hubler, the Democratic nominee to represent Iowa’s fifth district.

It’s a Republican-leaning district (R+8), but we just won Mississippi’s first Congressional district, which tilts even more strongly to the GOP.

King has a money advantage, but his cash on hand of $251,000 is not a dominating war chest compared to what other incumbents have at their disposal.

Also, the Iowa wingnuts may be crazy, but they aren’t crazy about John McCain. The GOP presidential candidate will have a much weaker turnout operation in Iowa than Barack Obama, and the editor of the Storm Lake Times thinks King may be vulnerable given the atmosphere of “Republican despondence.”

If I haven’t convinced you with this post or my previous work highlighting King’s more embarrassing moments, take it from Texas Nate, who declared King to be “the worst Congressman of them all” in this MyDD diary. That’s quite a statement coming from Nate. They’ve got some really bad ones representing parts of Texas.

UPDATE: Ted Mallory, who lives in King’s district, has drawn a cartoon about King’s behavior in the Feith hearing:

http://tedstoons.blogspot.com/…

I have some questions for anyone who participated in the statewide canvass Barack Obama’s campaign organized in Iowa last Saturday.

I would like to hear from as many people as possible, from different regions of Iowa if possible.

If you prefer not to post your answers on a blog, you can e-mail them to me confidentially: desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com

1. Did the script the campaign provided for volunteers say anything about Democratic candidates other than Obama?

2. Were you instructed to ask for voter preferences about Democratic candidates for Congress?

3. Were you instructed to ask for voter preferences about Democratic candidates for the Iowa House or Senate?

4. When you recorded voter IDs, were all Obama supporters and/or leaners lumped together in one group? Or were you asked to keep track of which Obama supporters were also backing down-ticket Democrats?

I’m trying to figure out how much emphasis there was on 1) getting the name of down-ticket Democrats out there, 2) tracking voter IDs regarding down-ticket Democrats, and 3) separating Obama supporters into different groups depending on whether the voters were also backing down-ticket Democrats.

Today I ran into a central Iowa college student I know. She asked about my t-shirt, which says Jerry Sullivan, State Representative District 59.

I explained that he’s a candidate in my district for the Iowa House. I asked where she lived, and when she told me I informed her that she lives in House district 60, where Alan Koslow is the Democratic candidate.

Her response was to shrug and say she doesn’t vote for anything but president. I tried to explain that a lot of things are decided by state governments, so she should check that “Democratic Party” box (Iowa allows party-line voting). I don’t know if I got through to her.

My point is that the Obama campaign should help educate voters so that they understand the need to do more than check the box next to Obama’s name.

Also, given Obama’s Iowa caucus strategy, I have some concern that his campaign may work on activating Republicans who will vote for him but against Democrats down-ticket.

Late last week the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took the unusual step of releasing detailed information about where they plan to spend $34 million on television advertising this fall. Click the link to read how much the DCCC says it will spend in each of 31 districts, only 12 of which are currently held by Democrats.

As you can see from the comment thread under this post at Swing State Project, a lot of people are unhappy about winnable seats left off this list. What about netroots hero Darcy Burner, who fell just short in Washington’s eighth district in 2006? Shouldn’t Dan Seals get some help in Illinois’s tenth? Are we really going to give “Mean Jean” Schmidt a pass in Ohio’s second?

I was disappointed not to see Iowa’s fourth district listed. Most of its 28 counties are covered by Des Moines or Mason City television, which is not that expensive. But keep in mind that this is just time reserved by the DCCC, and it could change if the situation on the ground changes.

If some of the Democratic districts targeted now appear safe by September or October, the DCCC could shift money elsewhere.

I also think Todd Beeton is right to note that

There are plenty more GOP seats that should be on this list, CA-04 and WA-08 come immediately to mind. I look forward to seeing more seats added to this list as we get closer to November. What should be remembered is that this list is simply what the DCCC was comfortable making public and putting the GOP on notice.

It’s up to us Iowans to give Becky Greenwald a boost against Tom Latham in the D+0 fourth district. We already have a registration advantage in the district. We need to help Greenwald raise money and generate excitement around the race. When the DCCC reassesses the field later this year, it won’t be too late to get involved.

Clearly, the DCCC is not going to spend much money supporting Rob Hubler in Iowa’s fifth district, but we should keep our focus on that race too. It’s a terrible district to cover with television commercials, because the 32 counties are located in so many different media markets. But we can still give our time and money to Hubler’s campaign. King is an embarrassment, and he will get little top-of-the-ticket help from John McCain, who has no organization in Iowa.

The fifth is the most Republican district in Iowa with a partisan index of R+8, but we just won Mississippi’s first Congressional district, which tilts even more strongly to the GOP. The Storm Lake Times thinks that King may be vulnerable given the current political environment.

UPDATE: DCCC Executive Director Brian Wolff issued the following statement on the ad buy:

“Our initial media buy is the first act of a many act play.  As we have been all cycle, the DCCC is focused, prepared, and organized.  Watch what we do over the next four months and our aggressive strategy to expand the playing field and strengthen the Democratic Majority will become clear.”

Democratic candidate Rob Hubler has sent an open letter to Congressman Steve King inviting him to participate in eight debates before the November election.

King refused to debate challenger Joyce Schulte in 2004 and 2006, but his spokeswoman did not immediately rule out the possibility that the incumbent would debate Hubler.

The sites proposed by Hubler for debates are geographically dispersed around the fifth district: Sioux City, Carroll, Spirit Lake, Red Oak, Storm Lake, Council Bluffs, Orange City, and Osceola.

Speaking of Storm Lake, the editor of the Storm Lake Times wrote in the July 5 issue that

We’re told by the Obama camp that it will push to win the Fifth District. It may sound far-fetched, but Democrats Berkley Bedell and Tom Harkin proved that a progressive with common sense can win in Western Iowa.

The conservative Christian base of the Republican Party that prevails in these quarters is not energized by GOP standard bearer John McCain as it was with Bush. It’s possible that turnout could be muted in November among this key voting bloc. […]

We could see Obama carrying the Fifth by winning Dickinson, Clay, Buena Vista, Carroll, Woodbury, Pottawattamie and Cherokee counties. That’s where the population is, and that’s where the most independent voters are. He might be able to compete in Crawford and O’Brien counties.[…]

Republican despondence also may be a threat to incumbent Rep. Steve King, R-Kiron. Scoff if you will, but again recall that Harkin defeated incumbent Bill Scherle and Bedell knocked off incumbent Wiley Mayne in the post-Watergate landslide. The atmospherics may be similar this year.

Sorry, no link is available on that newspaper’s website.

Hubler visited all 32 counties in the fifth district last year and has continued to campaign actively this year. He is visiting all the county fairs in the district during July.

The full text of the press release about Hubler’s open letter to King is after the jump.

I was glad to see this press release a few days ago from Becky Greenwald’s campaign:

For Immediate Release

Contact: Erin Seidler

July 2, 2008                                                                                                        515-537-4465

Tom Latham’s Other ‘Milestones’ In Congress

Des Moines – Tom Latham announced today that he has held 450 town hall meetings since taking office. The Greenwald for Congress campaign thought this was a good opportunity to discuss Tom Latham’s other “milestones” since taking office in 1995.

7             The number of times Tom Latham has voted to continue the Iraq War, even as recently as June 19th.

92            The percentage of Tom Latham’s votes cast in Congress that were following the Republican Party line. That is even higher than Steve King.

507          Amount, in millions, for veteran’s healthcare that Tom Latham voted against in 2006 in favor of tax cuts for people making more than a million dollars per year. (HR 5385)

“Looking at the numbers, Tom Latham isn’t listening to the people of the 4th District at his town hall meetings,” said Erin Seidler, Communications Director. “It’s time to make a difference in the 4th District and elect Becky Greenwald for Congress. “

The National Republican Congressional Committee is advising Republican candidates “to establish themselves in a personal manner, emphasizing local issues whenever possible.” A recent strategy document warns against nationalizing the Congressional races in light of the GOP’s very unpopular national brand.

It’s no surprise that Latham would brag about his town-hall meetings. He has every reason to go by the new GOP playbook in his swing district where Democrats have made huge gains in voter registration and now slightly outnumber Republicans.

Remember, Democratic candidates have won special elections this year in Republican-leaning Congressional districts in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi.

If I were Greenwald, I would remind fourth district voters every day that on Iraq and many other issues, Latham has continually marched in lockstep with President Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress.

The Cook Political Report recently changed its rating for Iowa’s fourth district from “Solid Republican” to “Likely Republican.”

Don’t be surprised if it gets upgraded to “Lean Republican” before too long.

Greenwald is working hard. She participated in three Fourth of July parades yesterday (in Clear Lake, Waukee and Iowa Falls) and is raising a lot of money. She has another big fundraiser coming up in Des Moines on July 10, by the way–for details, call 515-564-3883. The more local contributions she receives, the better the chance that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and EMILY’s List will fully commit to this race.

Watch Rob Hubler make his case:

Not only does Steve King embarrass all Iowans on a regular basis, he doesn’t even serve his constituents well. The Sioux City Journal researched the question How effective is Steve King?, and couldn’t come up with many accomplishments.

In fact, only three of the 44 bills King has sponsored even made it out of committee. Keep in mind that for the first two of King’s three terms in the House, Republicans controlled the chamber.

King has managed to get one bill through, according to the the Sioux City Journal. That was a resolution on “Recognizing the importance of Christmas in the Christian faith.”

No, that is not a joke from The Colbert Report.

Commenting on the Sioux City Journal’s article about King, Douglas Burns notes that King has focused on expanding Highway 20 but seems little concerned about Highway 30, which has more traffic and economic development potential.

Do Iowans a favor and give some cash to Hubler’s campaign.

Today is the last day of the second quarter, and it’s important for candidates to show strong fundraising.

I encourage you to give to a few good Democrats today, either online or by writing a check (the check must be dated June 30).

I received this appeal from Rob Hubler, who is trying to do all Iowans a favor by retiring Congressman Steve King:

June 29, 2008

Dear [desmoinesdem],

I am trying to bring back Real Representation to Iowa’s fifth district, and I need your help.

The second quarter FEC deadline is only a day away – Monday, June 30th. Will you help show our strength in the upcoming filing by contributing what you can today?

The political analysts love to base their idea of a campaign on the size of its pocketbook over the issues of the candidate. While you and I know that ideas and organization are what really matters to the people of the fifth district, we also need to show financial strength. National organizations face a decision of which races to help, and look at this quarter to base their decision. We need to show that western Iowa is working hard to defeat Steve King. If you have been waiting to donate to my campaign, this is the perfect time when it will help us out the most.

In the last few weeks I have spoken to democrats, independents and republicans at events across the district and the state; and everywhere I go people are telling me the same thing: give Steve King the pink slip!

Even the press is taking notice. Check out this article from the Sioux City Journal with the headline: How effective is Steve King?

I hope you’ll be able to help us show them that what Iowa really wants in its congressman is a servant – not a king.  

Thank you,

Rob

p.s. – you can contribute online by visiting our ActBlue page. If you are sending a check, it is important that it is written on or before June 30th. If you are donating online, it’s important that it is done by midnight June 30th.

It’s a tiny sum of money compared to what we appropriate for building new roads, but I’ll take it:

Immediate Release:  June 26, 2008

Contact: John Krieger – (614) 214 9888

Phineas Baxandall – (617) 747-4351                                  

House addresses high gas prices by investing close to $2 billion in public transportation

Responding to record-high gas prices and the rising use of public transportation, the House of Representatives today passed HR 6052, the Saving Energy through Public Transportation Act, by a vote of 322 to 98 which authorizes 1.7 billion dollars to transit agencies across America to expand services and reduce fares.

This investment is part of a long-term solution that gives Americans affordable and convenient alternatives to driving and allows transit agencies to keep up with drastic increases in ridership brought on by high gas prices.

“We applaud this legislation for its rare combination of practicality and vision,” said US PIRG staff attorney John Krieger, “The House recognized today that we cannot kick our oil addiction without driving less, and we cannot drive less without better transportation alternatives.”

According to analysis released this week by US PIRG, American families are spending close to 100 dollars a week on gasoline.  That spending has increased almost 40 percent in the last five months, and   household spending on transportation is now the second highest expense for the average family –  more than food, clothing, even healthcare.

Americans have responded to higher gas costs by taking public transportation at record rates in areas where it is available, and American drivers traveled fewer miles last year for the first time in almost thirty years.  

Analysis by U.S. PIRG shows that public transportation created net oil savings of 3.4 billion gallons in 2006. That is enough to fuel almost 6 million cars for an entire year and saves consumers about $13.6 billion in gasoline at today’s prices.

“Rising gas prices are getting people out of their cars in record numbers,” said Krieger, “Investments like this give them a better and cheaper way to go.”

#  #   #

U.S. PIRG is the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups.  State PIRGs are non-profit, non-partisan public interest advocacy organizations.

Here’s hoping the U.S. Senate approves this bill with a clear bipartisan majority as well.

We also need the leadership of the Iowa House and Senate, as well as Iowa Department of Transportation officials, to understand the need for greater investment in public transit options.

Unfortunately, the TIME-21 transportation plan adopted in Iowa this spring doesn’t require any additional funding to go toward public transit.

It’s possible that every one of the $4 billion likely to be raised through TIME-21 over the next two decades will be spent on roads. The legislature didn’t even impose a “fix-it first” requirement to make sure maintaining existing infrastructure would take priority over building new roads.

Like I’ve written before, it’s hard to drive less if no alternatives to driving are available.

Over at the Washington Independent, Spencer Ackerman has given Congressman Steve King the “jackass award”. Here’s why:

He says first that we can’t trust interrogators who want to “cuddle up to someone” to get the truth, even though that’s pretty close to what professional interrogators actually do to get the truth. And then he says that Bush used the same “aggressive” reasoning to go into Iraq to deal with weapons of mass destruction, because if he hadn’t and “we had been attacked again,” or if we hadn’t waterboarded Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and then we were attacked again, then the critics now would be perhaps impeaching Bush. This is his defense! A mess of counterfactual conditionals, factual misstatements (there, like, weren’t any WMDs in Iraq) and pure, unadulterated politics. God bless Mr. King.

Please help rid our state of this national embarrassment. Support Rob Hubler, Democratic candidate in the fifth district, with a donation before the June 30 deadline.

I went over quite a few reasons to support Hubler against King in this post.

It’s also worth noting that Hubler released a strong statement opposing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that just passed the House last week.

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.