Nine-term incumbent Republican Tom Latham (IA-04) and eight-term incumbent Democrat Leonard Boswell (IA-03) will face off next year in Iowa’s third Congressional district. Latham spoke about the 2012 campaign today, making his first public remarks on the subject since he confirmed he would run against Boswell. Highlights from his comments are after the jump, along with Boswell’s first preview of how he will compare his record to Latham’s.
Iowa’s new Congressional map prompted Latham to start house-hunting in order to avoid a Republican primary against Steve King in the fourth district. The redrawn IA-03 is evenly balanced politically, and it contains just three counties Latham has represented before: Warren, Madison and Dallas. Latham put a positive spin on his upcoming move when speaking to reporters on April 28. Not only will he be closer to his grandchildren in Polk County, he feels “very, very good” about where he’ll be running for Congress. Latham observed that more Republicans live in the new IA-03 than in the district he represents now. He promised “to work our tails off” and hinted that he won’t be the first candidate to go negative in the race:
“There’s going to be a lot of accusations that are not founded in fact and, you know, we’re going to run a very positive campaign, but I’m not going to go let charges not be responded to, certainly. That’s very, very important,” Latham said. “But I want to run for congress, not against anybody.”
According to Latham, he and Boswell have had a working relationship for more than a decade as they collaborated with the rest of Iowa’s congressional delegate to advance issues that specifically impacted Iowa.
“When I made my decision, I went to him personally and said, ‘Leonard, I wish we’d never had to have this conversation, but the way it stacks up I’m going to be running in the third district,'” Latham said. “He understood and we’re still friends.”
Somehow I doubt that friendship will survive the next two years. Boswell’s campaign ran only one positive television commercial during his 2010 race against Republican Brad Zaun. He was able to “win ugly” partly because he faced a weak candidate but also because he outspent Zaun, who didn’t get financial support from the National Republican Congressional Committee. Latham has a lot more money in the bank than Boswell ($983,509.92 cash on hand to $173,815.85 as of March 31), and he’ll have plenty of help from the NRCC if he needs it. He also has a political action committee called For America’s Republican Majority (FARM-PAC).
Boswell indicated earlier this month that contrasts between his voting record and Latham’s will be central, especially relating to Medicare and federal spending:
“What’s going to happen this time, there’s going to be a major realization that we have voted quite differently,” Boswell said in an interview. “The people are going to get the chance to take a look at it and see what they think.”
A key example, Boswell said, is Friday’s [April 15] U.S. House vote on the budget proposed by Wisconsin Republican U.S. Rep. Paul D. Ryan. Latham voted in favor of the budget, while Boswell voted against it in the 235-193, party-line vote.
“I believe we must reduce this deficit. We’ve got to do it,” Boswell told about 30 seniors Monday at the Polk County Senior Center in West Des Moines. “The attack on Medicare is not the way to go and on the middle class and on children and on education. That’s not the way to go. There’s other ways to do it.”
Boswell, who is back in Iowa for the two-week congressional Easter work period, instead advocated for reducing the debt by getting rid of billions of dollars of subsidies for the oil companies, as well as tax advantages for the very rich.
“There’s ways that we can reduce the costs and not have to take away from folks something that they depend on and have been working for and planning on for years and years of their working life,” he said. “We can do it different. We can do it better.”
Since Boswell gave that interview, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has begun robocalling the third district with a script saying Latham “actually voted to end Medicare, rather than end taxpayer giveaways for Big Oil making record profits or tax breaks for the ultra rich!” On April 28, Boswell signed a pledge promising to work to strengthen Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement and the Iowa Alliance for Retired Americans brought the pledge to Boswell’s Des Moines office as part of “Don’t Make Us Work ‘Til We Die” events being held around the country this week.
Boswell’s call to get rid of tax breaks for the rich would be more convincing if he hadn’t voted in December to extend the Bush tax cuts at all income levels for two years. Those tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2012, and I expect Latham will contrast his desire to make them permanent with Boswell’s support for raising income tax rates for the top bracket. In Republican campaign rhetoric last year, those who sought to revert to Clinton-era tax rates on the highest incomes were accused of seeking to “raise taxes on small businesses that create jobs.”
I don’t expect Latham to run away from his votes for Republican priorities on federal spending. Here’s the statement he released after voting for the GOP budget on April 15:
“With passage of this budget, the U.S. House of Representatives has taken an important step toward ending the status quo of outrageous taxing, spending and borrowing. The debate in Congress has turned an important corner. Just a few months ago, the conversation focused on expanding the role of government, and now we’re talking about cutting spending and halting the trend of spiraling deficits.
“American families have learned to tighten their belts and do more with less, and now Washington must do the same. The American people have sent a clear message to Congress that they want a government that spends within its means and gives them the certainty to create jobs and rebuild the economy. This budget proposal proves that the House is listening to America and is working to deliver results.
“The spending binges and deficits of the last few years have forced us to make tough choices about our future. This is too important to let partisanship and politics stand in the way of doing what’s right for the American people. I stand ready to work with the White House and any of my colleagues in Congress – regardless of party affiliation – to take the bold action necessary to address our country’s fiscal crisis.”
If Latham’s 2008 campaign advertising is any guide, he may also emphasize his efforts to improve health care services in Iowa.
Boswell’s new district contains only one county that’s in the current IA-03: Polk, the largest by far in population. Several other counties were either in Boswell’s Congressional district during the 1990s or part of the turf he used to represent in the Iowa Senate. Like Latham, Boswell put a positive spin on the new shape of IA-03:
Boswell pointed out that he has represented 70 percent of the new 3rd Congressional District and said he likes his chances of winning in 2012. His district now will include southwest Iowa, which he has represented before.
“Over half of the counties, one way or the other, I’ve served them before,” he said. “We’re kind of looking forward to going out and making new acquaintances, but renewing some of the old acquaintances because there’s a lot of them out there. … We’re kind of excited about kinda going home.”
Neither Latham nor Boswell has represented Pottawattamie County in the past, which contains the second-largest city in the district (Council Bluffs). Expect massive GOTV efforts by both political parties there, not only because of the Latham-Boswell race but also because Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal is the top Republican target in next year’s statehouse races. His new Senate district 8 closely resembles his current one, comprising most of Council Bluffs. Part of the city lies in the open Iowa House district 15, which Democrats view as a strong pickup opportunity.
Any comments about the IA-03 race are welcome in this thread.
UPDATE: On April 29 Boswell for Congress sent out this e-mail blast:
Every one – from families to workers to small business owners – is feeling the pinch as the price of gas reaches $4/gallon; every one that is except the oil and gas companies that are receiving billions in tax subsidies and making record profits off of consumers’ pain at the pump.
Each year, companies like Exxon Mobil and BP receive billions in taxpayer dollars to keep our nation in bondage to OPEC and dependent on fossil fuels. As House Republicans seek to destroy Medicare as we know it in the name of deficit reduction, they are also doing everything they can to protect these giveaways to Big Oil.
Sign the petition and join me in putting an end to the U.S. government’s subsidizing of oil corporations.
Click here to sign my petition to end tax subsidies for oil and gas companies.
I voted against the Republican Paul Ryan’s budget plan because it put corporations and special interests ahead of health care for seniors and a quality education for our children. Perpetuating our nation’s dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels endangers our national security and slows our progress toward becoming energy independent.
In addition to ending tax subsidies for oil and gas companies, I am spearheading an investigation with my colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee into the impact Wall Street speculators are having on the ever-rising price of oil. As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee which oversees the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, I believe consumers deserve to know if oil companies and speculators are playing on supply fears in order to drive up the price per barrel and make a quick buck.
Join me today by signing my petition to hold oil and gas companies accountable and end taxpayer-funded giveaways to Big Oil.
I will always protect the interests and future of Iowans. American taxpayers deserve to know where their money is going and that should not be into the pockets of oil company executives. Please add your name to this important petition today.
Sincerely,
Leonard L. Boswell
From the Progressive Punch database, here is Boswell’s voting record on legislation related to oil and gas industry subsidies. He’s got a 75 percent “progressive” record in this area.
Tom Latham has voted the “progressive” way on oil and gas subsidies only about 4 percent of the time. Here’s how he voted on specific pieces of legislation.
SECOND UPDATE: I highly recommend watching Boswell’s appearance on Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press” program this weekend. Click here for the video and the full transcript. He talked about his fit to the district, Medicare, oil subsidies, taxes on the wealthy, agricultural subsidies, and more. Here are some excerpts, which we’re likely to hear again and again as the campaign progresses:
Henderson: Congressman, you’re known as a blue dog, which means you’re a moderate democrat, in an era in which it seems as if moderates or fence straddlers don’t do as well as liberal democrats or conservative republicans. Are you an anachronism, a throwback?
Boswell: Oh, I don’t know. You know, Kay, I think most people are moderate when it comes right down to it and I think Iowans are, I think they expect you to be able to compromise and work things out, you can’t have it way over here and you can’t have it clear over there and I came very green into the legislature years ago, you know, there was never a my want list, I got drafted but I let it happen and I observed some of that going on and I could give you examples and names that you’d all know of but you’ve got to bring it together to get things done and that seems to fit me, I feel good about it and so I’ll continue to work that way and the blue dog mantra is fiscal responsibility. What’s wrong with that? And at the same time you’ve got to look after people’s needs and you’ve got to look after your community and you’ve got to look after your state and your country. […]
I expect every race to be tough. I’ve had lots of tough races and I expect them to be tough because I think that the third district, the third when I started, the third it became, the third it’s going to become or eventually will be in the next election it’s always been a swing district, it’s the definition of a swing district. I seem to fit with those kind of folks and so they send me back but it’s usually a heavy challenge.
Borg: Let’s look at expanding on Mike’s question here. You’ve got Council Bluffs and Des Moines and a whole lot of rural area. How do you bridge that, major metropolitan areas?
Boswell: I’ve already done that, Dean, that’s what I’ve been doing for years really. I’ve been here now the last ten years in Des Moines, the capitol city and I’ve got a lot of rural area here. But that rural area out there, most of it, I know and I come from there. They know me, they know my background, they know what they get with Leonard Boswell. I come with a hands on agricultural background, I get repeating myself but I was a soldier, I served well and I’m a veteran and I do a lot looking out for veterans and the know what my priorities are when it comes to education and so on. I think they feel pretty comfortable with me.
Henderson: You mentioned a concern about the pace of the recovery, the economic recovery. Do you think that the economy and especially higher gas prices may be the dominating issue of the next campaign and you may not benefit from that because you’re seen as the party in control because your president is in the White House?
Boswell: Well, everybody is concerned about the gas, the cost of gas and, of course, particularly in rural areas where you don’t have public transportation, you’ve got to rely on it and it’s a very big concern and here we go having this problem and we get reports that the oil companies, the gas companies are making mega profits and that’s kind of hard to understand. And so I’ve gone out with others on a letter to ask for a hearing on this to say, why are you doing this to our country? It’s your country too so why are you doing this? And let’s have some explanation. This is not the right thing to do if we care about this country and keeping this economy going. […]
Borg: Let me take you a step further then. Does that kind of thinking that you just said I was in favor of and I voted for it — does that extend into modifications now in the insurance, the federal insurance program called Medicare? Are you in favor of some things that are being spoke of now of modifying Medicare?
Boswell: Well, if you’re talking about the budget that was proposed, no. The going to the voucher system, I think that would be a terrible thing, just like you heard me say probably on this program sometime years ago when they wanted to privatize Social Security. Where would we be now as we went into this recession situation if Social Security had been invested in Wall Street? So, they want to do this, suggesting this voucher system and putting in on the backs of our seniors to make up the deficit situation and there’s other places to go. I mean, there’s other places to go that are reasonable and that’s not a reasonable place to go and I don’t support that. I don’t think the seniors deserve it and I’m just not in favor of it. We actually have other places we can go and that’s what we ought to be doing. […]
Glover: Is it possible to deal with the looming federal deficit, the looming federal debt without touching programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security?
Boswell: I think so. We can and the adjustments we made to Medicare in the 111th Congress extended its survivability out for ten years and everybody is treated the same and it’s there, it’s solid and so that gives us time to work out things that we need to do so we don’t have to do this knee jerk and do harm to it by going with vouchers and things that’s not necessary because there are other places to go.
Borg: Where are these other places to go?
Boswell: I was hoping you might ask me that. How about the oil companies and the billions of dollars of subsidy there? There’s one there.
Borg: You’ve already talked about that. Where else?
Boswell: Well, let’s go to a couple more. How about the multi-millionaires? I don’t know too many but I’ve talked to a couple and they say, why are you doing this? Warren Buffett would be one, I didn’t talk to him, by the way, don’t get me wrong there but I’ve talked to one or two others and they said, why are you doing this? Why aren’t you doing it for healthcare and education and science and alternative fuels and why aren’t you doing the things this country needs and this and that? Why are you doing that for us?