As Chase Martyn reported for Iowa Independent, Ed Fallon officially announced on Wednesday that he will challenge Leonard Boswell for the Democratic nomination in Iowa’s third Congressional district.

Populista put up a diary here urging people to vote for Ed as Democracy for America’s “All-Star” candidate. I have already done so, and I hope you will too.

I’ll be writing more about this race in the coming months. For now, I want to briefly lay out the case for supporting Fallon’s challenge.

Leonard Boswell is a good person. I have voted for him every time and have contributed to his Congressional campaigns. However, he has been too willing to go along with the Bush administration on too many issues. He has voted to repeal the estate tax based on specious arguments from the Grover Norquist crowd. He voted for Bush’s horrible energy bill. He has voted to enable the Bush administration’s policies on Iraq and torture.

We have a chance to get a rock-solid progressive in this seat, and we should take it. While in the legislature, Ed Fallon had a 100 percent voting record on choice and labor issues, and was very strong on the environment and many other areas of importance.

Boswell sits on the Transportation Committee and has done nothing to help bring our national transportation policy back into balance. Fallon is talking about the need to get a handle on urban sprawl and invest in alternative forms of transportation as well as new road construction.

We are going to hear a lot from the Democratic Party establishment about Fallon supposedly being unelectable. I want those people to explain to me why Boswell’s winning margin in 2006 was so much less than Chet Culver’s winning margin in the counties that make up the third district.

Many Democrats, particularly progressives, simply do not feel that Boswell is representing our interests well enough.

Fallon has the potential to draw cross-over votes from independents and Republicans. He did it in the 2006 gubernatorial primary, and he can do it again. But just as important, he is a candidate Democrats can enthusiastically vote for.

Those who say that we can’t take a risk on replacing Boswell also need to explain their game plan for holding on to Iowa’s third district after the 2010 census. Iowa is going to lose a Congressional seat when the districts are redrawn. The most likely scenario I can see is that Boswell would retire in 2012, leaving us with no incumbent to run against Tom Latham or Steve King in the newly-drawn third district.

We are better off getting a new incumbent in place before that happens.

Finally, I believe that Fallon’s challenge will benefit Democrats even if he does not win the primary. As Chris Bowers reported last month at Open Left, Boswell voted against an Iraq funding bill for the first time ever after rumors about Fallon’s challenge started circulating.

I have also heard that Boswell recently signed onto a global-warming pledge that he refused to sign months earlier, when Congressmen Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack backed it.

We’ve seen the voting records of other Democratic incumbents improve after progressives challenged them in primaries. Jane Harman and Ellen Tauscher of California come to mind. If Boswell does win the primary, I expect that his Congressional votes will better represent the will of his constituents.

If Fallon wins the primary, we will be favored to elect a strong progressive to this seat, given his base in Polk County and the expected high turnout for Democrats in a presidential election year.

I respect the views of Bleeding Heartland readers who are sticking with Boswell, but I urge you to consider the case for Fallon. If you already support Fallon, please consider donating to or volunteering for his campaign. They will need all hands on deck, since the party establishment will line up behind Boswell.