Repositioning for Iowa Redistricting

Repositioning for Redistricting: Beat Latham in `10, Retire Boswell in `12

It's an unspoken truth of Iowa politics that we're losing a seat in Congress in the 2010 census. (As a blogger, it's my job to say rude, uncomfortable, yet true things). That sets up the ultimate in hardball politics, since five members don't go into four districts.

As a partisan, I want to come out of the carnage with a 3-1 Democratic split. We can do it, but it's a two-cycle process:

1) Take out Tom Latham in 2010.

2) Get Leonard Boswell to retire in 2012.

Follow my logic.

---

Iowa redistricting is more unpredictable than anywhere else in the country. A little refresher course: The Legislative Service Bureau draws a map, based solely on census population. The Legislature gets an up or down vote and can't amend anything until three maps have been submitted. In 1991, they took the first map; in 2001 they rejected one and went with the second.

Still, simple population math indicates there will be two eastern Iowa districts, a Polk County dominated seat, and a Republican western district.

Would I like to see Steve King gone? Sure. But there's X number of Republicans in the state, they're geographically concentrated in the west, and it'll take a primary to get rid of King. And I'm a firm believer that it's up to a party to choose its own candidates. Republican primaries are not Democrats' business and vice versa.

Besides, all the base are belong to him. And King is crazy but not stupid. He'll keep saying outrageous things in floor speeches and on Fox News, and stay in the House rather than risk it all on a statewide run. He's the Republican we love to hate, but in this drama he's a distraction.

I think the post-Vilsack buzz about a Bruce Braley Senate run is all wrong. Look at his Washington moves: a big role in the Waxman-Dingell fight, rewarded with a seat on Energy and Commerce, and starting the Populist Caucus. Bruce is settling in for a House career.

Dave Loebsack, despite GOP fantasies about Mariannette Miller-Meeks, is also comfortable in the general southeast section of the state. And the last time Black Hawk and Linn counties were in the same congressional district was back when we had two districts-—at statehood.

So that leaves Tom Latham and Leonard Boswell.

I've long been arguing it's time for Leonard Boswell to retire, that's no secret. But Leonard has made it clear, announcing for 2010 on Election Night 2008, that he's never leaving on his own. He'll run till he drops dead or till he's beaten.

Leonard's a nice enough guy, and I'm not going to bash him on age and health. Ted Kennedy's old and ill, but I want him in there fighting as long as he can. I won't trash Boswell's down-home style, either; he is what he is. And a lot of my friends have worked for Boswell and I respect that. He's been a good mentor to many over the years.

The problem is the issues and the record. Leonard Boswell represents an urban-dominated district (by Iowa standards), yet he votes like he's still in his old rural state senate district. I want better, and I think better can win.

The primary challenge nudged Boswell a notch to the left, but he still needs to move about two more notches to match Loebsack and Braley. I'm open to that, but frankly I'm not expecting it from him this far into his career.

I really wish Boswell had stayed put on the farm in 2002; he was mapped into the very Republican 5th District, but was probably the only Democrat who could have held it. Tom Harkin and Berkley Bedell used to win on the same tough turf.

A Blue Dog would be fantastic as an alternative to Steve King, but Des Moines shouldn't have to settle. And the worst part is, Boswell's damn proud of it, with that annoying “Conservative Democrat” logo on his web page. Boswell made it hard for us eastern Iowans to make the case against Jim Leach, when Leach actually had a better voting record than Boswell. Dave Loebsack eventually made that case, but till then we sure heard about it a lot, especially in 2002 when Harkin and Boswell voted yes on the war while Leach voted no.

Uncomfortable yet, Democratic readers?

---

Carpetbagging at the congressional level seems to be OK in Iowa, going back at least to the 1981 map when Tom Harkin successfully moved. We had the luxury of an open seat in 2002, with no loss of a district and Greg Ganske running against Harkin. Des Moines Dems quietly grumbled when Boswell moved from the difficult 5th CD into the more Democratic 3rd (Matt McCoy was already up and running), but no one had the gonads to actually challenge him. Leach was also able to move without it becoming an issue, and held on for two more terms against the partisan odds, until the tidal wave and Loebsack's effective "Bush enabler" message proved too much in 2006.

Leonard's campaign skills have atrophied in recent years. He dodged debates in 2008, and the primary campaign against Ed Fallon degenerated into a despicable bout of Nader-bashing. Yet, with all his negatives and too little money, Fallon still took about two out of five votes. That may be the base against Boswell in a primary, but it may be the max, too.

No, Boswell won't lose a primary. When he loses, it'll be to a Republican in the general. He has consistently underperformed the rest of the Democratic ticket throughout this map cycle. And Tom Latham has already made his move, relocating to Ames a couple years back.

Last time Iowa lost a seat, in 1991, the Legislature accepted a “fair fight” district that paired Jim Nussle and Dave Nagle. Inexplicably, voters chose grandstander Nussle over hard-working, leadership track Nagle. (1992 was just a weird year; my take is that the Perot vote went Republican in all the down-ballot races.) Nussle never broke 60 percent in the old 2nd... but he never lost it, either.

Let's say we get a fair fight district again in 2011. Odds are the members who'll get paired are the two who are geographically closest together: Latham and Boswell.

It the map came out today, Democrats would theoretically control the whole process. But even assuming we keep the trifecta into 2011, that doesn't assure passage of a congressional map favorable to Boswell—or to anyone, for that matter. Legislative votes on the map aren't really about congressional districts or even parties. They're about legislator's own districts.

In the current alignment, a hook of suburban 4th District counties wrap around Polk County, anchor of the 3rd District. There was a lot of Republican noise in the debate on the first 2001 map about getting districts with an “urban-rural mix.” That was just smoke for public consumption. But in any case, the crux of the fight was a proposed central Iowa, seven county district: Polk, Dallas, Madison, Story, Marshall, Boone, and Greene. That failed, but back in the 1980s alignment, when we had six districts, Neal Smith had a six county district: Polk, Dallas, Jasper, Story, Boone, Hamilton.

If the map produces a similar district next time around, with Latham and Boswell paired in a compact, fair fight seat centered on Des Moines, the suburbs, and Ames, the noise might be different. Because in a race between a low-key, kind of generic Republican versus an aging good ole boy Democrat with atrophied campaign skills, the Republican just might win.

"So, Deeth, you're saying Latham could beat Boswell?"

That's exactly what I'm saying, exactly what I think would happen, and exactly what I want to avoid.

Which is why Democrats need to take out Tom Latham in 2010 with a Democrat who's more progressive than Boswell. (A woman would be nice, too. Becky Greenwald was a serious underperformer; I'm open to suggestions.)

Let's say we go into 2011 with a 4 to 1 Democratic delegation: King, Braley, Loebsack, Boswell, and New Hotshot Who Just Knocked Off Latham. And she(?)'s from, say, Indianola or Ames. The new map gives us that compact fair fight district.

Who's a better fit: Good Ole Boy or Hotshot? If she's a she, do we toss the first Iowa congresswoman out after only two years? Who's a better bet for Iowa seniority in the long run: Good Ole Boy or Hotshot? Who's a better candidate against Latham: Good Ole Boy or Hotshot? Who's a better House floor vote: Boswell, Hotshot... or Latham?

But if we don't take Latham out in 2010, we're stuck with Boswell as the candidate. Democrats have been chicken about challenging incumbents in primaries since Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter. Only someone with nothing to lose and few friends on the inside, like Fallon, will take it on. I swear, people would rather lose the seat to a Republican than hurt Leonard's feelings.

So. Knock off Latham, then ease Boswell out. Sounds like the plan to me. But for it to work, we need to find Hotshot NOW. The floor is open for nominations.

Fallon's Backhanded Backing of Boswell

Mr. Subliminal: Fallon's Backhanded Backing of Boswell

Ed Fallon fired up the I'M for Iowa email list Tuesday, saying he plans to keep a campaign pledge and vote for his former primary opponent, Congressman Leonard Boswell.

So far, so good. Fallon has been attacked in the past for a lack of party loyalty. A long-since renounced Ralph Nader endorsement from 2000 became a major, perhaps decisive, issue in his primary loss to Boswell.

But then Fallon continues. "The Des Moines Register’s editorial board also recommends supporting Boswell." He then includes a link to the "endorsement".

"Iowans deserve more from 12-year incumbent," blares the headline. "After 12 years of light accomplishment and wrongheaded votes, Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell doesn't deserve to return to Congress," reads the text. The Register, which to the surprise of many backed Fallon in the primary, calls its own endorsement "a weak nod" and states that Boswell only got the endorsement because Republican Kim Schmett had failed to make a case.

One can almost hear Fallon as Kevin Nealon's old Saturday Night Live character, Mr. Subliminal, uttering the subtext between the Register's lines, as the paper calls on Boswell to take a last term pledge:

Both the Democratic and Republican Parties should line up credible, energetic candidates (here i am) to run in 2010, people who are capable of developing deep expertise on issues (here i am), are willing to hold the government and themselves accountable (here i am)and have the potential to be leaders on the national stage (here i am).

"Many people have told me they plan to write-in my name," Fallon takes the trouble to note. Without using the word "don't," he says, "As promised, I plan to vote for Boswell when I go to the polls on Election Day."

Register Endorses Fallon

Register Fallon Endorsement May Be Boswell's Price For Not Debating

It seems like a surprise on the surface, but the Des Moines Register endorsed Ed Fallon Tuesday in the 3rd Congressional District, over incumbent Leonard Boswell.

Why alienate an incumbent who, according to all public polls, is likely to win re-nomination by a two to one margin? Let me help you think like journalists.

We've got this weird mix of cynicism and idealism, always looking for the motivations behind seemingly straightforward moves, yet still wishing for the Mr. Smith Goes To Washington vision of how government and politics are really supposed to work. Think John Stewart meets Jimmy Stewart, and you'll get the idea.

Ed Fallon, in his own way, plays into that vision, telling the Register editorial board that he wants to bike to work and grow tomatoes while serving in Congress. Fallon is different, thus making him interesting, and the true bias of the press is toward the interesting story.

Fallon's independent streak, his "I don't play ball attitude," is annoying to party insiders and legislative colleagues. But it plays well to the press paradigm of "objectivity," which sees independent thinking, within reason, as morally superior to voting a party line. The question here is defining "within reason." "Fallon is aware of mistakes he's made," the Register writes in its endorsement. "He joked, for example, about being overzealous in introducing bills during his early years in the Iowa Legislature." How many stories were padded by one line from 1993 to 2006 for having to include the phrase, The lone nay vote was Rep. Ed Fallon, D-Des Moines? Just enough? Too many?

The Register describes Boswell as "out of touch" on several key issues, particularly Medicare spending. Editorial board in general love those dull gray, doom-and-gloom budgetary issues that play out so convincingly in long print articles, and can't be simplified into soundbites. The Registers David Yepsen calls those the "pour another cup of coffee" stories (presumably, not a latte from an Iowa City coffee house).

But perhaps the most significant reason, not even mentioned in the endorsement piece itself, has nothing to do with Fallon or with a concrete federal issue. My sense is this endorsement is a shot across Leonard Boswell's bow for not debating Ed Fallon. The incumbent cited a busy Congressional schedule, but nevertheless had plenty of time to attend events in the district.

It may have been smart politics, in the conventional sense. If you're an incumbent who's well ahead, why give your opponent a break by putting him on an equal footing? A debate might have turned the dialogue in the race from "Why did you vote for Ralph Nader, Ed?" to "Why did you vote for the war, Leonard?"

But playing it safe involves some trade-offs, and perhaps this endorsement is the price Boswell paid for not debating. Debates are good stories, and they're one of the rituals of the campaign trail that journalists believe in. Boswell will probably learn his lesson and agree to debate Republican Kim Schmett in the fall.

In the end, the Register endorsement isn't likely to mean much. Boswell's gotten almost every other endorsement that matters in this race, from organized labor and party insiders. Even Senator Tom Harkin, who usually stays out of primaries, has placed the stamp of approval on Boswell. Only a handful of left-side groups, such as Move On, are with Fallon.

More importantly, Secretary of State Mike Mauro is predicting very low turnout next Tuesday. That means most of the voters will be the diehard party activists who vote in every election, who know Leonard Boswell, and who are receptive, or perhaps susceptible, to the Nader! Nader! Nader! rhetoric the Boswell campaign has offered.

Fallon Wasn't Iowa's Only Nader Democrat

Fallon Wasn't Iowa's Only Nader Democrat

Incumbent Leonard Boswell is hammering his 3rd Congressional District Democratic primary challenger, Ed Fallon, over Fallon's endorsement of Ralph Nader in the 2000 presidential election, charging that Fallon "helped elect George W. Bush." The appeal is powerful to the party activists who vote in primaries. In the post-Florida era, Democrats consider a 2000 vote for Ralph Nader an act of heresy, and non-president Al Gore is a martyred Democratic saint.

But the picture of Gore was very different before the Nobel Peace Prize, before the Oscar, and before the 2000 election.

---

Retrospective history has painted Fallon as a loner, and less than a year later he repudiated the endorsement. But Fallon was far from the only Democrat unhappy with Gore. Polls in the summer of 2000 showed Nader winning as much as 6 percent of the national vote, well above his final 2.7 percent.

"If I had three hands maybe I could hold my nose, my gut and my mouth and vote for Al Gore," Fallon told a Cedar Rapids crowd on Oct. 29, 2000. "But in good conscience, I can't, I won't, and you shouldn't either."

Mike Palecek, who was the 2000 Democratic nominee for Congress against Tom Latham in the old 5th Congressional District in northwest Iowa, also endorsed Nader that year. "Nader was clearly the better candidate," wrote Palecek in 2007. Palecek's Nader endorsement earned a mention in the Capitol Hill newsletter Roll Call just before the election. Palecek lost in a landslide, winning only 29 percent in a heavily Republican district.

"Al Gore and Bill Clinton had bombed Iraq, continued the sanctions against Iraq for 10 years, "reformed" welfare, expanded the federal prison system. There is no way I was in support of that," wrote Palecek. "I do not regret endorsing Nader."

Palecek remains a registered Democrat even though he "detests" the party and feels both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are too militaristic. "We need strong leadership, someone who would be willing to investigate the Bush involvement in 9/11, for example. I think what we might expect from either Clinton or Obama is more of the same."

Fallon was among many people on the left end of the Democratic Party frustrated by Gore's choice of conservative Sen. Joe Lieberman, who supported Republican efforts to impeach Bill Clinton, as his running mate. History has proven those concerns to be prescient, as Lieberman bolted the Democratic party after losing his 2006 Senate primary, then defeated Democratic nominee Ned Lamont in the general election. That is the same kind of "nonsupport of the party" that got Fallon kicked off the Polk County Democratic central committee in 2001, yet Lieberman, calling himself an "independent Democrat," sits in the U.S. Senate Democratic caucus today.

Other liberal activists were annoyed by Gore's role in the Parent's Music Resource Council (PMRC) hearings of 1985, where Tipper Gore crusaded against Prince lyrics and faced spirited, circus-like rebuttals from Dee Snider of Twisted Sister and from Frank Zappa. Al Gore never distanced himself from the music labeling issue, and even bragged about his wife's efforts near the end of his final 2000 debate with Bush:

"When (our oldest daughter) was little, she brought a record home that had some awful lyrics in it. And Tipper hit the ceiling. And that launched a campaign to try to get the record companies to put ratings that -- warning labels for parents. And I'm so proud of what she accomplished in getting them on there."

"Tipper is hated by a lot of people for the warning stickers, especially by liberals who consider the labels censorship," wrote Jocelyn Marcus of the Iowa State Daily after the election. "Young people, especially males (who voted Nader in higher numbers than females), also tend to be the same people who buy CDs with 'Parental Warning: Explicit Lyrics' stickers on them. Though other PMRC members were also responsible for the warning stickers, the labels are widely called 'Tipper Stickers.'"

The Daily Iowan reported that more than 2,000 people attended a Sept. 25, 2000 Iowa City Nader rally, and many paid with a small donation to the campaign. That was a common Nader fundraising approach in 2000. Two days earlier, thousands had paid to attend a Seattle rally that also featured Pearl Jam frontman Eddie Vedder.

At the Iowa City rally, some were persuaded:

He won UI senior Jane Anderson's vote with this sentiment and others, she said.

"I was going to vote for Gore because he is not as supportive of big business as Bush," she said. "After this (rally), my vote goes to Nader."

"My Democratic Party affiliation is not a casual one," said University of Iowa law professor Nicholas Johnson, who introduced Nader at the event. His remarks remain on his web site:

"I've worked for the election of every Democratic presidential candidate since Harry Truman in 1948. I've run for the U.S. Senate from Iowa as a Democrat. I've run for Congress as a Democrat. I've held three presidential appointments in the administrations of U.S. Presidents who were Democrats. I've worked on a Democratic National Committee project and held virtually every position within the Johnson County Democrats.

So I have no intention of putting George W. Bush in the White House."

Johnson attacked Gore for accepting campaign money from 66 corporations that had also donated to Bush:

"AT&T, Phillip Morris, Microsoft, Federal Express, Anheuser-Busch, Pfizer, Time Warner. Ever heard of any of them? Well, there are 59 more I don't have time to list. These corporations don't care which of their nominees wins. They're not in this for the ideology. They're in it for the return on investment."

Johnson praised the historic role of third parties in coming up with new ideas for reform, telling the Nader crowd:

"That's how we got regulation of banks and railroads, a progressive income tax, the eight-hour workday, direct popular election of U.S. senators, workers' compensation, limitations on child labor, the women's right to vote, and the right to collective bargaining."

In a conclusion that seems haunting today, Johnson advised the crowd on voting strategy:

"If seven electoral votes could make the difference in who becomes president check the latest Iowa polls. Is the popular vote in Iowa likely to be close?

Only if you answer all of those questions "yes" do you need to be concerned that your vote for Nader risks putting someone you fear in the White House.

If there's a big spread on the national electoral votes, or the Iowa popular vote, it's a free vote for you.

It is voting for Bush or Gore that becomes a wasted vote.

It's the vote for Nader that's not wasted. The vote that's registered as a meaningful protest. A demand for campaign finance reform. For returning American democracy from the corporations to the people."

Despite Boswell's charge that Fallon "helped George Bush win," Gore carried Iowa by 4,144 votes, with Nader taking 29,374 Iowa votes. Iowa's seven electors did prove to be more than Bush's five electoral vote margin. (It would have been a four vote margin, but one District of Columbia elector abstained to protest the city's lack of voting Congressional representation. An effective protest, since I have to mention it in this disclaimer eight years later.)

After Democrat John Kerry lost the election, and Iowa, to Bush in 2004, Johnson wrote:

Vice President Gore would have easily won had he held the support of Democrats. There were many multiples more Democrats who voted for Bush than there were Democrats who voted for Nader. And more than half of those who voted for Nader were either Republicans or indicated that, but for Nader, they would not have voted at all.

'Never mind that,' said the party’s apologists, 'It’s all Nader’s fault.'

This year [2004] the Democrats don’t have Nader, or anyone else, to scapegoat.

Johnson supported Fallon in his 2006 campaign for governor.

Ed Fallon’s Ironic Campaign Finance Issues

Ed Fallon’s Ironic Campaign Finance Issues

Ed Fallon has always cut a Not Just Another Politician image, from his refusal to wear neckties during his legislative tenure to his deliberately modest earthy-crunchy lifestyle.

Leonard Boswell, on the other hand, even looks like he could have been sent from central casting to play the part of good old boy politician. And his campaign finance course has been traditional, too. He hauled in over $540,000 in PAC contributions during 2007.

So how come Fallon is losing ground on, of all issues, campaign finance?

Campaign finance was supposed to be one of Fallon's signature issues in his primary challenge to incumbent Boswell in the 3rd Congressional District. Fallon has long refused PAC and lobbyist donations, and during his legislative campaigns turned down donations of over $100.

But Team Boswell has the experience to live carefully within the letter of the law, while Fallon looks like he’s got his fingers in the till for paying himself a subsistence salary while he shut down his gubernatorial campaign. And his grassroots I’M For Iowa effort, while fully in the spirit of what campaign reform is supposed to be about, may not be within the letter of the current law. Campaign finance law is tricky about letting money and lists slop over from one effort to another.

There’s no good spin on this for Fallon. The worst interpretation of the salary question is hypocrisy, and his best defense is to embrace the charges. Community organizing (hot buzzword) takes time, he could say, and money, and isn’t a salary paid by small-dollar campaign donors preferable to an outside job with potential conflicts of interest? That may or may not fly. The money and list issues may be Fallon’s bigger problem, as it makes the campaign look like amateur hour.

The legislature’s relatively quick action on proposals to ban personal salaries from campaign committees could be in part due to Fallon’s relatively unpopular status under the dome. That's in sharp contrast to the amiable Boswell's personal popularity with legislators during his 20-year state senate career. The party power structure quickly united behind Boswell to fend off the Fallon challenge; note the quick endorsement of Boswell by party leaders who often stay out of primaries, with Tom Harkin topping the list.

Back in 2006 during his gubernatorial run, legislators expressed their off the record contempt for Fallon. "Grandstander" was the rap. Maybe some legislators were irritated by his lone votes on 99 to 1 roll calls.Most of them were backing Mike Blouin (the seeds of that particular mutual discontent may be sprouting in the collective bargaining standoff with Governor Culver). That grudge about Fallon's Ralph Nader endorsement in 2000 runs pretty deep too, even though Al Gore carried Iowa and even though Fallon has repeatedly apologized and denounced the endorsement. The Nader thing has allowed Boswell to undermine the whole premise of Fallon's candidacy by putting the "I'm a better Democrat" card in the incumbent's hand. Which is really funny, considering that in 2006 Boswell had a voting record to the right of Iowa Republican Jim Leach.

There’s a supreme irony here, that Ed Fallon is losing points to Leonard Boswell on campaign finance reform. But in the end, Fallon got into the mess himself. As he has his whole career, he was living on the edge of the acceptable, and Iowa’s Democratic establishment is eager to kick him now that he’s down.

Boswell "Ready" But Hopes Fallon Primary Doesn't Happen

Boswell "Ready" But Hopes Fallon Primary Doesn't Happen

Congressman Leonard Boswell told Iowa Independent Friday that he hopes former gubernatorial candidate Ed Fallon doesn't challenge him in next year's 3rd District congressional primary, but he'll be ready if it happens.

Last week Iowa Independent reported exclusively that the domain names FallonForCongress.com, FallonForCongress.net, and FallonForCongress.org were registered to an organization called "Fallon for Congress." Since that story, Iowa Independent has also learned that nomination petitions for Fallon have been sent to county Democratic chairs in the 3rd District for placement in caucus packets.


Boswell chats with Hamburg Inn owner Dave Panther.

"I hope he does not run," Boswell told Iowa Independnet during a campaign stop for Hillary Clinton at the Hamburg Inn in Iowa City. "It's time for Democrats to move forward." Boswell was visiting the famous political stop with Clinton's campaign chair, former Democratic National Committee chair Terry McAuliffe. "I don't know that it's going to happen, but people have a right to run," said Boswell, "and if it happens we'll be ready for it."

Fallon, who represented a Des Moines state house district from 1992 to 2006, finished an unexpectedly strong third in the 2006 gubernatorial primary with 26 percent. He led the field in the 3rd Congressional District. Fallon was seen as one of the most liberal members of the Iowa House, and if there was a 99 to 1 or 97 to 2 roll calls, Fallon was usually on the short end.

Boswell, on the other hand, is one of the more conservative Democrats in Congress. Rankings at Progressive Punch show Boswell as the 214th most liberal of 233 Democrats in Congress, and actually had him behind Republican Jim Leach for 2006. Boswell's Progressive Punch score moves up to 170th when only this year's votes are included. He recently voted with fellow Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack in a failed effort to block $70 billion in funds for the Iraq war, in contract to earlier votes for war funding.

"To get something done you can't be too far over here, too far over there," Boswell told Iowa Independent, gesturing to the left and right. "You've got to go to the middle."

Emanuel trims his Frontline

Emanuel trims his Frontline

The House Dems need to go on offense in order to get back to 218, but here's a peek at the strategy on defense:

Reps. Melissa Bean (Ill.), Leonard Boswell (Iowa), Chet Edwards (Texas), Stephanie Herseth (S.D.), Brian Higgins (N.Y.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Charlie Melancon (La.), Dennis Moore (Kan.), and John Salazar (Colo.) were informed last week that they will receive direct donations from their fellow incumbents, in addition to other campaign assistance...

Interesting to see Leonard on that short of a list...

Politics