Every four years, the Republican Party sets out to brand the Democratic presidential candidate as an out-of-touch elitist, and it’s frustrating how well this strategy seems to work for them. I am old enough to remember how they made Michael Dukaksis, the son of middle-class Greek immigrants, out to be more elitist than George H.W. Bush, the son of a senator who grew up in a very privileged environment, attending elite private schools from a very young age.

Progressive Media USA is trying to turn the tables by releasing this web video about “The Fabulous Life of John McCain”:

I have mixed feelings about this strategy. I don’t think we want to say don’t vote for McCain because he married a wealthy woman and has multiple fancy residences.

On the other hand, it is pretty damning to watch video clips of McCain advising struggling Americans to work a second job or skip a vacation, when we’ve just learned that McCain has an American Express “black centurion” card, which is apparently reserved for people who spend more than $250,000 on it each year.

I also like the clip of McCain answering a question about our economic problems by saying, “A lot of this is psychological.” The video closes by asking viewers how McCain can solve our problems if he can’t understand them.

What do you think about this video and/or the general strategy of trying to brand McCain as a super-wealthy elitist?

Every once in a while on one of the national political blogs, a supporter of Hillary Clinton or John Edwards will assert that Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses by busing in thousands of ineligible voters from out of state.

As any regular reader of this blog knows, I am no fan of Obama, and I’ve strongly criticized some aspects of the Iowa caucus system.

But I have yet to encounter any serious observer of Iowa politics who believes Obama won Iowa by cheating. I have been talking to many volunteers for the Clinton and Edwards campaigns in Iowa, and a few staffers, while researching a future diary on how those candidates might have beaten Obama here. Literally no one I’ve talked with has claimed that Obama did not legitimately win the caucuses.

No doubt there were some people from out of state who fraudulently registered to vote here on caucus night. I’ve heard that may have been a particular problem in some areas of Scott County. But I haven’t seen any evidence that the Obama campaign orchestrated any fraud, and there’s no way the cheaters were numerous enough to account for Obama’s margin of victory here.

If you don’t believe me, read this story from the Des Moines Register: Caucuses drew few ineligible voters:

The Register review of voter registration data from all 99 counties reveals a low rate of new voter applications filled out on caucus night by people whose addresses later could not be verified.

Only 1.5 percent of the new voter identification cards mailed to voters who registered on caucus night were returned to county auditors as undeliverable. That’s an indication that the vast majority of new caucus-night voters had a bona fide address in Iowa.

State officials say the low error rate is impressive, especially since caucus-night turnout vastly exceeded expectations and overwhelmed local party officials around the state.

The other argument I hear from the occasional conspiracy theorist on a different blog is that Obama’s campaign bused in large numbers of students from out of state. First, that would have affected turnout in a relatively small number of Iowa’s 1,800 precincts.

Second, as long as those students attend Iowa colleges and live in state most of the year, I have no problem with a campaign helping them get back to their campuses in early January. What’s the qualitative difference between that and my giving someone in my neighborhood a ride to the caucus if he or she can’t drive?

The caucuses never should have been scheduled during the winter vacation of most colleges anyway.  

On Friday my husband and I received the latest direct-mail piece from Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign. Like his recent mailings about the economy and the Iraq War, this piece portrays Boswell as a fighter.

It’s not very subtle, with five references to Boswell “taking on” the opposition and three references to him fighting or not being afraid of a fight.

I’ve described the layout of the four-page mailer and transcribed its text after the jump.

The wonderful nyceve caught this unintentional comedy from John McCain as he answered a question about his health:

“Everything’s fine,” McCain told reporters during a news conference. “Like most Americans, I go see my doctor fairly frequently.”

As nyceve points out in her latest diary, “most Americans” do not go see the doctor frequently, especially not if they are only covered through a Health Savings Account. That’s the centerpiece of McCain’s health care plan, but nyceve gives us a reality check:

If all you’re able to afford is High Deductible Junk Insurance which McBush is pushing as a solution to our healthcare catastrophe, then you don’t to go to a doctor “fairly frequently” as McCain does. You don’t attend to routine health problems because you can’t afford to. High deductible health insurance offers bare bones coverage and is insurance in name only.

So what do you do if you have junk insurance?  You wait and hope and pray that you recover. Some Americans even procure medicine from pet stores which often sell a variety of antibotics at low prices.

Her diary also included a link to this report:

More than a quarter of Americans have skipped or postponed an essential visit to a doctor because it was too expensive, a new MSN-Zogby poll says.

Nearly half (48%) say they pay more in health-insurance premiums than a year ago, and 37% say they pay more out of pocket for medical services or prescriptions.

The results of the poll of 9,765 adults suggest that medical expenses are becoming a heavier burden on household finances, even for middle-income Americans.

Go read the whole diary, which includes a video of a 33-year-old man who was uninsured when he was diagnosed with lymphoma. He describes the choices he had to make while undergoing cancer treatment without health insurance. Of course, no private insurer will sell him a policy now that he has had cancer, a problem McCain’s health care plan would do nothing to correct.

By the way, DemFromCT points out the inconvenient fact that McCain supported George Bush’s veto of Congress’s attempt to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. When will the media stop calling him a maverick?

The non-profit Public Campaign advocates for public financing of campaigns, which “makes elections about voters and not lobbyists and campaign donors.”  

The group has declared April 14-18 “Fair Elections Action Week”:

The Fair Elections Now Act, introduced by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) and its companion legislation in the House represent our best chance to date to see the Clean Elections public financing programs that have been so successful at the state level be enacted for Congress. In the midst of an election season when campaign fundraising and campaign spending are at an all time high, we need to rally behind legislation that will drastically reduce the influence of special interest money on elections, and put the focus of candidates for federal office back on the voters.

I’m proud to say that Senator Tom Harkin is among the co-sponsors of the Durbin bill. As we’ve reported at Bleeding Heartland, Harkin is no slouch when it comes to fundraising under the current system; he started this year with more than $3 million in the bank. Yet Harkin has the good sense to support clean elections reform.

The excessive influence of moneyed interests in Washington is obvious to anyone who follows Congress closely. If we can take a step toward reducing the role money plays in our elections, we may be able to make progress on a lot of other issues.

Unfortunately, Congressman Leonard Boswell is not on board with the House bill on public financing, as this letter to the editor by a former Common Cause intern mentions. It would be great if he had a change of heart on this issue, but that seems unlikely.

Can any Boswell supporter explain to me why he hasn’t stepped up to co-sponsor this bill?

By the way, as you probably know already, Ed Fallon would support this election reform at the federal level. He has strongly advocated for the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections Act, which would create a voluntary public financing system similar to those which enjoy massive bipartisan support in Maine and Arizona.

I wasn’t surprised to get this e-mail from the Boswell campaign today:

Iowa Corn Growers Association Votes to Endorse Congressman Leonard Boswell

Des Moines, IA – The Iowa Corn Growers Association Political Action Committee (PAC) voted to endorse Congressman Leonard Boswell today.  “I am very pleased to accept the endorsement of the Iowa Corn Growers Association,” said Congressman Boswell.  “As a hands-on farmer, I have had a relationship with the Iowa Corn Growers for many years. The work they do is crucial to the success and prosperity of Iowa’s corn producers.”

“The Iowa Corn Growers Association appreciates Congressman Boswell’s current work on the Farm Bill.  He provides consistent leadership on behalf of Iowa farmers, and we look forward to working with him in the future out in Washington,” said Max Smith, committee member of the Iowa Corn Growers Association PAC.

The Iowa Corn Growers Association consists of nearly 6,000 members across the state of Iowa.

Boswell certainly is a steadfast supporter of the current federal agriculture policy, and large corn growers do profit from that policy.

Many people, including myself, think that policy benefits a relatively small number of relatively large farms. Corn subsidies in particular have been cited as a contributing factor to the obesity epidemic, as high-fructose corn syrup has been added to so many processed foods and drinks.

I would like to see a shift in our national agriculture policy, which would provide more support for conservation, crop diversity, local food networks and small farmers. I don’t expect much help from Boswell on those issues. But that works out great for large-scale corn growers.

Lynda Waddington has written a good profile of Pat VanZante, who is running in Republican-held House District 71 this year. She sounds like a great candidate. That includes most of Marion County and part of Jasper County.

I would like to see more in-depth coverage of our statehouse candidates and their races at this blog.

I encourage all Democratic campaigns to consider posting here to keep us up to date. I plan to promote all diaries by Democratic candidates in Iowa to the front page.

Congressman Leonard Boswell has been re-branding himself lately as someone who is “standing up to George Bush” and “taking on George Bush for the change we need”.

Which would be great, except that on some of the most important votes he has cast during the Bush presidency, Boswell has sided with George Bush and the Republican majority, rather than with the majority of his fellow House Democrats.

Today Ed Fallon’s campaign put out a press release highlighting one of those votes in connection with recent reports that Bush appointees at the highest level were involved in approving acts of torture.

Here is an excerpt:

Fallon notes his opponent Leonard Boswell, a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, has publicly expressed his disapproval of torture. “Unfortunately, it’s clear that his voting record is inconsistent with his public position,” says Fallon.

According to Congressional voting records, Congressman Boswell voted for the Military Commissions Act (S.3930, 09/27/06), which gave the President the ultimate authority to determine which interrogation techniques qualify as ‘torture.’ Fallon says, “Boswell sided with Bush and broke with 82% of House Democrats who voted against this bill.”

The Military Commissions Act also permits the admission of statements into evidence that were obtained by torture, as well as giving retroactive immunity to any officials who authorized acts of torture. It also suspends habeas corpus, allowing the government to detain hundreds of prisoners for years without ever filing charges against them.

The press release also notes that Boswell has to date declined to sign on to H.R. 952, which would prohibit the “extraordinary rendition” of people in U.S. custody to countries where they will be tortured.

I would like one Boswell supporter reading this to put up a comment or diary defending the incumbent’s vote on the Military Commissions Act. Explain to me why Boswell was right to let Bush appointees authorize torture, and let the president order people to be arrested and held without charges indefinitely.

The full text of Fallon’s press release is after the jump.

Yesterday I received another four-page direct-mail piece from the Boswell campaign. Like one I got last week, this was paid for by Boswell for Congress and not the U.S. treasury. Also like the last mailer, it casts Boswell as someone who stands up to George Bush–in this case, on the war in Iraq.

The front page features a large photo of a young child clutching an American flag and peeking over the shoulder of the man in uniform who is holding him. The text to the left of the photo reads:

In 5 years…

_____________

4,000 killed

30,000 wounded

$1 trillion spent

_____________

It’s time to end

the war and

take care of

our veterans…

The top line of that text is in red–the rest is in large black type.

Page 2 of the mailer features a large photo of Boswell, with this text in large type:

Congressman Leonard Boswell

is working to:

Help our veterans.

End the war.

Page three has two smaller photos on the right side; one of Boswell speaking at a press conference, the other showing him talking with two veterans. The text on the left side of the page reads:

Standing Up to George Bush

Congressman Boswell voted five times to create a timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. In five years of war, 4,000 soldiers have lost their lives and 30,000 have been wounded. A trillion dollars has been spent causing incalculable damage to our economy and creating an historic national debt for our children and our grandchildren. Leonard Boswell is working to end the war that George Bush started.

Standing Up for Our Veterans

A 20-year veteran who understands the true cost of war, Leonard Boswell has worked tirelessly on behalf of our veterans. He voted for the largest VA funding increase in history and fought to improve health care access for our wounded soldiers. He wrote a bill to provide better mental health care for our men and women in uniform and is working to bring the troops home every day. He authored and passed the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Ac.

Leonard Boswell is Taking on

George Bush for the Changes We Need

For more information: www.boswellforcongress.com

Democratic Primary – June 3rd

The last page has a small photo of Boswell talking with a man and a woman, and a small photo of him with his wife Dody. Across the top in large print, it reads:

Congressman Leonard Boswell

Working to End the War and Help Our Veterans

In smaller type on the right-hand side are the following bullet points:

A 20-year veteran – served two tours in Vietnam

Voted five times for a timetable to withdraw the troops from Iraq *

Voted for the largest VA funding increase in history

Fighting to improve health care access for wounded soldiers

Working to provide better mental health care for our veterans

Authored the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act

In very small print next to an asterisk below the photos are the numbers of the bills referred to in the bullet point on withdrawing troops from Iraq: H.R. 1591: RC 186, RC 265, RC 276; H.R. 2956: RC 624; H.R. 4156: RC 1108

At the bottom there’s contact information for the campaign and “Paid for by Boswell for Congress.”

Just got this e-mail from the Polk County Democrats:

From the Obama Campaign:

Dear Polk County Democrats,

The presidential season is still upon us and it has been fabulous to have watched the campaigns evolve in Iowa and continue to battle their way through the rest of the country.

As we all know, regardless of who the nominee is, we have work to do together as Democrats to elect a Democratic President to the White House and keep our Congress controlled by the Democrats

In the spirit of unity, we wanted to make it clear that the Obama campaign is not promoting a candidate in any of the local, state or congressional campaigns. We reject any efforts that give that impression.

If you have any questions and want to reach our campaign, please don’t hesitate to send an email to iowa@barackobama.com and we will get back to you.

Some of you may have heard about an upcoming Obama rally on Saturday. The Nation for Change Rally is being organized SOLELY by a grassroots group of Iowa Obama supporters who are excited about Senator Obama and would like to spread his message. If you would like more information on the event (Saturday, April 19th at 2:30 pm at Capitol) please email Cheryl Fasano at angelswings51@hotmail.com.

Sincerely,

The Iowa Obama Campaign

Anyone know what this is about? I have not heard of any state, local or Congressional candidates trying to claim they have Obama’s backing.

I know that Ed Fallon is planning to be at that Obama rally on Saturday. Are they worried that the appearance will be construed as an endorsement of Fallon by Obama?

who is repelled by the overheated Hillary-hating rhetoric coming from some Obama supporters. Rebecca Traister has written a good feature for Salon. Go read the whole thing to see how bashing Hillary alienates even some women who have voted for Obama. Traister writes,

I began reporting this story in part because, as a 32-year-old woman who is more liberal than either candidate, and who was quite torn until Super Tuesday, I had found myself increasingly defensive of Clinton in the face of the Obama worship that rules the mostly white, liberal, well-educated circles in which I work and travel. I was confused by the saucer-eyed, unquestioning devotion shown by my formerly cynical cohorts, especially when it was accompanied, as it often was, by a sharp renunciation of Hillary Clinton, whose policies are so similar to her opponent’s. I was horrified by the frequent proclamations that if Obama did not win the nomination, his supporters would abstain from voting in the general election, or even vote for John McCain. I was suspicious of the cultlike commitment to an undeniably brilliant and inspiring man — but one whom even his wife calls “just a man.”

I am a loud feminist and a longtime Clinton skeptic who was suddenly feeling that I needed to rationalize, apologize for, or even just stay quiet about my increasing unease with the way Clinton was being discussed. Meanwhile, I was getting e-mails from men I didn’t know well who approached me as a go-to feminist to whom they could express their hatred of Hillary and their anger at her staying in the race — an anger that seemed to build with every one of her victories. One of my closest girlfriends, an Obama voter, told me of a drink she’d had with a politically progressive man who made a series of legitimate complaints about Clinton’s policies before adding that when he hears the senator’s voice, he’s overcome by an urge to punch her in the face.

Obama fans, you don’t have to like Clinton, but if you want to help your candidate, keep your feelings about Hillary in perspective (or if you can’t do that, at least keep them to yourself).

Your guy’s voting record in the U.S. Senate is almost exactly the same as hers, as big-time Obama supporter DemocraticLuntz has shown. The policies proposed by Obama and Clinton during this campaign are very similar as well.

Remember: your candidate is winning now and will need all hands on deck after the primaries are over. You don’t want to drive away anyone who might otherwise be inspired to volunteer for Obama.

Welcome to the latest installment of my series about efforts by Leonard Boswell's campaign to make the third district primary about Ed Fallon's faults.

Boswell's staffers and supporters have criticized Fallon for the following four alleged ethical problems:

1. his work and fundraising for the Independence Movement for Iowa (I'M for Iowa)

2. the salary Fallon drew from unspent campaign funds following the 2006 gubernatorial primary

3. allegations that Fallon pondered running for governor as an independent after losing that primary

4. Fallon's stand against taking contributions from political action committees (PACs) while allowing PACs to encourage their individual members to donate to his campaign.

For my take on the I'M for Iowa allegations, see this diary and this follow-up piece.

I addressed the controversy over Fallon's salary from his gubernatorial campaign in this post.

This post looks at the evidence on whether Fallon considered running for governor as an independent.

Follow me after the jump for more on Fallon, Boswell and PACs.

Ed Fallon sought to connect Leonard Boswell with unwelcome trends in Iowa agriculture during three campaign events on April 12. An accompanying press release from the challenger’s campaign noted:

Fallon served on the Iowa House Agriculture Committee for six years and believes that the rampant consolidation of the hog industry and the explosion of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are impacting family farming and rural community viability.

Fallon noted that in 1995, a bill (HF 519) changed Iowa law to enable a drastic shift in hog production from family farms to corporate giants such as Iowa Select, DeCoster, Murphy, and Premium Standard.    

Fallon said, “As it happens, the President of the Iowa Senate at that time was Leonard Boswell, my opponent in this race. While I worked with fellow House Democrats to block passage of HF 519, Leonard Boswell helped get it passed in the Senate. ”

Fallon says he [is] disappointed that the Democratic Legislature in Iowa has done nothing on this issue and would recommend a moratorium at the federal level.

It’s not the first time Fallon has emphasized the differences between himself and Boswell on agriculture policy. That Iowa bill passed in 1995 features prominently on the agriculture page of Fallon’s campaign website.

Fallon made the point again in an interview with Iowa Independent blogger Dien Judge last month.

Can Fallon, who represented an urban district in the Iowa House, persuade third-district voters that he is the better candidate on farm issues?

The agriculture page on Boswell’s campaign website reads:

“Iowa’s farmers are among our greatest assets and they deserve our support.”

Congressman Boswell grew up on a farm in rural Iowa and returned to Iowa to farm after his service in the military.  He successfully led his local farmer’s co-op through the farm crisis of the 1980s, when he served as its chair.  Today, Boswell is guided by the values and common sense he learned as a farmer.

In Congress, Boswell has been a friend to agriculture.  He is one of two Iowa Representatives to serve on the House Agriculture Committee and one of only 37 farmers in the entire Congress.  He voted in favor of the most recent Farm Bill, which makes historic investments in conservation, nutrition, fruit and vegetable production, and renewable energy while maintaining a strong safety net for America’s farmers and ranchers.

During his tenure in Congress and on the Agriculture Committee, Boswell has fought for increased market transparency, expanding renewable energy production, increasing value-added agricultural products, keeping marginal land out of agricultural production, increased working lands conservation programs, and to keep a real safety net for our nation’s producers.

Speaking to Iowa Independent, Fallon suggested that Iowa needs to build more local food networks and diversity of crops produced:

“Before I got involved in politics I did some farming, but I messed up my back bad enough that wasn’t going to happen anymore. But to me, we need to create local markets for food products where we can help broaden the base of agriculture. I mean, we’re always going to be a leader. Iowa’s always going to be a leader in corn, soybean, hog and cattle production. But why can’t we also regain some of our status with fruits and vegetables and dairy? There are so many other areas. We can do anything here when it comes to agriculture; we can do it all.”

In the same interview, Fallon acknowledged that he has “a lot more to learn” about federal agricultural policy, since his “focus in agriculture has been on Iowa issues, as they related to the Legislature’s role.”

Boswell seized on that admission in his own interview with Dien Judge, which Iowa Independent published on April 11:

Ask Boswell about his primary race, and he’ll say he’s ready for the challenge. He’s proud of his record and isn’t shy about criticizing his opponent. “I’ve had some very good success with different areas of conservation and energy and alternative fuels, which is something I’ve been involved in for many, many years. And I’ll continue to be there,” said Boswell. He said Fallon is always “trying to think of something to be critical about,” when “by his own admission he knows very little, if anything, about agriculture.”

“But I do know about agriculture, and I’m hands-on. I was actually born in a farmhouse. I spent my years growing up farming, and then my friends and neighbors called me off to the Army and I went off for a period of time. And when I came back, I went right back in the same neighborhood and took the risks and made the investment to farm. We went through a farm crisis, not only running a farm operation of my own but also in leadership of my local cooperative. You know, I have that under my belt. And by comparison, he doesn’t have anything like that.”

Boswell said federal agriculture policy is of the utmost importance to Iowa’s 3rd District, and it’s important to have an experienced hand in the Congress. “I think folks will figure that out,” he said. “And so I’m just going to keep on trying to do the good job that I try to do. We’re not going to hit every ball, but we sure try. And overall, I feel good about what I’ve done. So I bring to the table a lot of things that he just has no ability to bring to the table.”

Boswell has occasionally cited his experience as a farmer to justify Congressional votes that have nothing to do with agriculture. For instance, when a participant in a telephone town-hall meeting asked Boswell to defend his vote in favor of the bankruptcy bill in 2005 (which most House Democrats opposed), Boswell replied:

“I am a survivor of the farm crisis, and saw folks that bankrupted when they really had the ability to pay back,” said Boswell, who owns a cattle farm in southern Iowa. “It seems to me like when we sign our name on the line and promise to pay, that we have a responsibility if we have the ability to pay.”

At the same time, more help and counseling are needed to assist consumers from falling too deeply into debt, Boswell said. He said he worked very hard to not fall into bankruptcy when he faced financial problems with his own farm operation.

Although I can’t find a link right now, I recall Boswell justifying his vote to permanently repeal the estate tax (another Republican-backed effort opposed by most House Democrats) by saying we need to protect family farms. But as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows in its discussion of estate tax “myths”,

Despite oft-repeated claims that the estate tax has dire consequences for family farms and small businesses, there is in fact very little evidence that it has an outsize impact on these groups.  Indeed, the American Farm Bureau Federation acknowledged to the New York Times that it could not cite a single example of a farm having to be sold to pay estate taxes.

My guess is that anyone in the third district who is satisfied with current federal policy on farm subsidies and other agricultural issues will support Boswell in the June 3 primary.

But bringing up the expansion of CAFOs in Iowa, and connecting that with the law Boswell supported in 1995, could help Fallon with Democrats who are concerned with environmental problems associated with CAFOs. They include city and suburban dwellers as well as some rural residents who have seen the quality of life in their communities decline. Fallon has been an outspoken proponent of “local control” over the siting of CAFOs (currently Iowa law does not grant counties any zoning authority over agricultural operations).

You can read the full text of the Fallon campaign’s April 12 press release on agricultural issues after the jump.

I received this press release from the Boswell campaign about another union endorsement:

April 12, 2008

Iowa Federation of Labor Endorses Congressman Leonard Boswell

Des Moines, IA – The Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO announced their endorsement of Congressman Leonard Boswell today.  “I am very pleased and happy to receive the support of the Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO,” said Congressman Boswell.  “They fight for better pay, better benefits, and better job security.  I will continue to stand up for workers and their families in any way I can.”

“Congressman Boswell had a 96 percent voting record in 2007, and has a lifetime voting record of 85 percent,” said Ken Sagar, President of Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO. “We look forward to working with the Congressman on labor issues in the future.”

The Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO is made up of more than 400 local unions and 50 councils representing over 55,000 members.

It will be interesting to see whether any unions advertise on Boswell’s behalf this spring.

I would think the main benefit of these endorsements would be additional phone-bankers and foot-soldiers to GOTV for a June primary.

My husband and I both got direct-mail pieces from Congressman Leonard Boswell today.

I noticed that Boswell for Congress paid for this one, as opposed to the last three campaign-style mailers, which American taxpayers funded.

The front shows a large color photo of Boswell, with a smaller black-and-white photo of George W. Bush in the upper left corner. The text reads:

While Bush squandered a strong economy…

Leonard Boswell has been a

CHAMPION for Iowa’s middle class

When you open the mailer, page 2 consists of a large photo of Boswell standing next to a worker. The text at the bottom reads:

Congressman Leonard Boswell

DELIVERS for the middle class

Page three has three photos of Boswell talking with small groups of men and women. The text on the rest of the page reads:

Leonard Boswell is working to end the Bush recession

-Voted to increase the minimum wage and to support small business

-Helping reduce the cost of health insurance for small businesses through tax credits

-Working to balance the budget and provide tax relief to Iowa’s working families

-Creating thousands of future jobs for Iowans with new ethanol and renewable fuel standards

Leonard Boswell

Taking on George Bush for the Changes We Need

The back page has a photo of Boswell with his wife Dody. The text reads:

Congressman Boswell is working for Iowa’s new economy

-Making Iowa a leader in he green jobs revolution

-Creating high paying, new energy jobs

-Helping reduce the cost of health insurance for small businesses through tax credits

-Increasing the minimum wage

-Providing tax relief to Iowa’s working families

For more information: www.boswellforcongress.com

Democratic Primary – June 3rd

The bottom has contact information for the campaign as well as the notice, “Paid for by Boswell for Congress.”

Welcome to the latest installment of my series about efforts by Leonard Boswell’s campaign and its supporters to make the third district primary about Ed Fallon’s faults rather than the incumbent’s record of service.

Boswell’s staffers and supporters have criticized Fallon for the following four alleged ethical problems:

1. his work and fundraising for the Independence Movement for Iowa (I’M for Iowa)

2. the salary Fallon drew from unspent campaign funds following the 2006 gubernatorial primary

3. allegations that Fallon pondered running for governor as an independent after losing that primary

4. Fallon’s stand against taking contributions from PACs while allowing PACs to encourage their individual members to donate to his campaign.

For my take on the I’M for Iowa allegations, see this diary and this follow-up piece.

I addressed the controversy over Fallon’s salary from his gubernatorial campaign in this post.

Today I’m covering the Boswell campaign’s claim that Fallon considered running for governor as an independent after losing the 2006 primary to Chet Culver. Join me after the jump for more.

State Senator Dick Dearden on Wednesday announced plans to file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission over Ed Fallon’s alleged use of the I’M for Iowa movement to promote his Congressional campaign:

Dearden, also a Democrat, alleged that Fallon’s group violated federal campaign law by promoting his campaign for Congress without disclosing its source of money.

Dearden supports U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell, the Democrat Fallon is challenging in Iowa’s 3rd District primary on June 3.

[…]

Boswell and his campaign aides have raised questions about the relationship between I’M for Iowa and Fallon’s campaign for Congress, but have not formally alleged wrongdoing. Dearden said he took the action without consulting Boswell or his campaign.

“He collects money and he’s using the Web site – undisclosed money – to further his campaign,” Dearden, of Des Moines, told reporters at a Capitol press conference.

Dearden was referring to at least three e-mail messages sent from I’M for Iowa to the group’s supporters, in which Fallon’s candidacy was mentioned. Federal campaign law forbids corporate money from being spent in a campaign for federal office. Dearden’s argument is that the e-mail constitutes promoting Fallon’s campaign by a group that is not required to disclose its source of money.

Since the FEC does not currently have enough members to take official action, this complaint will almost certainly not be resolved in time for the June 3 primary. By filing the complaint, however, Dearden is assisting the Boswell campaign’s efforts to keep the media narrative about Fallon’s alleged ethical problems.

Fallon issued a press release trying to shift the focus back to his differences with Boswell over the issues:

Des Moines, March 9, 4:00 pm CDT – “I live simply.  I’ve always been a voice for ethics in government, and I have never taken a penny from a PAC or lobbyist.  Clearly, Boswell’s people are trying to discredit me on my strengths instead of discussing the real challenges facing America.  Voters deserve better than this.  I welcome the FEC’s investigation and I am eager for a debate with Congressman Boswell on the important issues, including campaign finance reform.”

Meanwhile, Fallon and the Boswell campaign sparred over the incumbent’s voting record on withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

The Boswell campaign points to five votes in support of a timetable for ending combat in Iraq. I think that the issue, though, is whether Boswell (like many Congressional Democrats), voted for some bills that called for bringing troops home by X date, yet were willing to support Iraq War supplemental funding bills that did not contain timetables for withdrawal.

It’s great to be on record calling for an end to combat operations in Iraq, but as long as Congress continues to sign blank checks to fund Bush’s war, the policy won’t change.

Leonard Boswell continues to line up union endorsements in his re-election campaign against Ed Fallon. This came today from the Boswell press office:

Des Moines Firefighters Endorse Congressman Leonard Boswell

Des Moines, IA – The Des Moines Association of Professional Firefighters (IAFF 4) announced their endorsement of Congressman Leonard Boswell today.  They cited Boswell’s support of the FIRE Act grant program, which has provided funding to local, county and state agencies to provide fire and rescue protection for Iowans.  Boswell has also supported the SAFER Act program, which helps local fire departments recruit and hire both full-time and volunteer firefighters.  The Windsor Heights fire department has recently benefitted from this program.

“I’m grateful for the support of career firefighters in Des Moines and Urbandale,” said Congressman Boswell.  “I am committed to providing all I can to ensure our first responders are appropriately equipped to respond to any type of emergency, including terrorism.  Our firefighters are the first to arrive on the scene of these emergencies and I will continue to work toward enabling them to do the job.”

“We count on Congressman Boswell as a knowledgeable and skilled leader.  He continues to provide analysis of vital intelligence information that keeps America prepared to respond to emergencies and threats.  Firefighters rely upon and deeply trust Leonard Boswell,” said John TeKippe, President of IAFF 4.

IAFF, Local 4 represents approximately 300 firefighters in Des Moines and Urbandale.

David Mizner has written a diary I recommend to all supporters of Barack Obama. It highlights behavior that inadvertently harms Obama’s campaign by driving away some Democrats who otherwise lean toward him.

Mizner was an active supporter of John Edwards for president, as his diary history shows. Like me, he wrote regular front-page posts advocating for Edwards at MyDD. But after Edwards dropped out, Mizner voted for Obama in the New York primary on February 5.

On its surface, Mizner’s latest piece is an inside-baseball critique of editorial bias at the Daily Kos. He demonstrates how Markos Moulitsas has in recent months become an uncritical cheerleader for Obama, after being skeptical toward all the Democratic candidates in 2007.

But I recommend this diary not because you should care about what some blogger thinks of Markos. Rather, I think Mizner has touched on the alienation many Democrats feel when they encounter the overheated Hillary-hating and Obama-loving rhetoric from Obama fans:

It’s no coincidence that in the last two months the site has devolved into a propaganda organ for the Obama campaign. Although it’s aggravating to come across Drudgery at the top of the rec list and casual claims that Hillary is a sociopath, it’s not the nastiness that’s worrisome (freedom is untidy); it’s the laziness, the unquestioning partisanship, the lack of brainwork. These days at Daily Kos there’s no exchange of ideas, no debate. Obama is good, Hillary is bad, case closed.

It’s probably not wise to go looking to Daily Kos or any other political blog for Truth, but the progressive blogosphere fancies itself the reality-based community, and that commodity is in short supply at the mothership. If you’re a progressive untouched by enthusiasm for Obama or hatred for Hillary, you must be wondering what race Kossacks are watching. In the race I’ve watched, Obama has not campaigned as a transformative progressive. In the race I’ve watched, he has failed to offer a single bold policy initiative, coddled a virulent homophobe for political purposes, voted to fund the war in Iraq and justified doing so by parroting a disgusting rightwing talking point, echoed the GOP claim that the Social Security system is in crisis, refused to join Edwards in opposing the Global War on Terror framework, joined George Bush in seeking to expand the size of the military by 92,000 troops, said he would increase the military budget, supported corporate free trade, enlisted Tom Daschle to assemble a base of support on K-Street, raised buckets of cash fromlobbyist-law firms, and bashed unions for helping Edwards until he himself was the beneficiary of labor’s largesse. Et Cetera.

A dozen links in that passage didn’t come through when I copied and pasted, but click to the original diary and you’ll see that Mizner has the links to back up what he is saying.

This passage also made a crucial point that Obama supporters rarely acknowledge:

I’m not going to defend the Clinton campaign’s race-baiting or its praising of McCain at Obama’s expense. Nor, though, will I defend the Obama’s campaign sexism, or its willingness to claim race-baiting where there is none. I believe history will show both that the Clnton campaign wanted to turn Barack into the “black candidate” and that the Obama campaign wanted to turn Hillary into the racist candidate. They both exploited racial resentment.

Several links in that paragraph didn’t come through. The most important one is to the memo that the Obama campaign distributed in South Carolina, which sought to portray the Clintons as using racially divisive rhetoric. That memo was designed to give Obama an edge among blacks and white liberals, and it worked, but it also distorted Hillary’s comments about Lyndon Johnson and Bill’s comments about the “fairy tale.”

My impression is that intense Obama supporters can’t understand why everyone isn’t as outraged as they are over the latest stupid comment by some Clinton supporter. First, the Obama campaign has crossed lines too, as Mizner points out. Second, many progressives have, according to Mizner,

abdicated the job of trying to hold Obama accountable. Both Move On and Blue Majority gave him endorsements without offering so much as constructive criticism. Kos himself hasn’t written one word critical of Obama in several weeks, during which time Obama has sent nothing but alarming signals on the sphere’s signature issue: Iraq. Unlike Hillary, he wouldn’t ban corporate mercenaries and his advisors are describing his modest withdrawal plan as a “best case scenario” and calling for a large residual force. Also unmentioned by Kos and the other Daily Kos front page bloggers is Obama’s attempt to denythat he once held certain liberal positions.

Again, the links did not come through, but you can find many in the diary.

When Obama puts up red flags, and onetime reasonable progressives have nothing but praise for him and condemnation for Hillary, it turns off a lot of Democrats.

Speaking of the devolution of political discourse lately, I can’t resist linking to a diary Mizner wrote last month: “Do You Miss Edwards Yet?” The opening paragraph was a classic:

Ah, 2007. How I long for those halcyon, pre-Ferraro days when a major issue in the primary was the dangerous influence of corporate power. Thanks to Edwards, the Big Three battled over who would be more willing and able to take on corporations. There was reason to doubt that the policies proposed by Obama and Clinton–and even by Edwards, perhaps–would deliver the bold change they promised, but at least the issue of corporate power was front and center. Now, though, with Edwards gone, the issue is barely an issue, and somewhere CEOs and Wall Street execs are laughing.

Ain’t that the truth.

This is part of a series I’m writing about efforts by Leonard Boswell’s campaign and its supporters to make the third district primary about Ed Fallon’s faults rather than the incumbent’s record of service.

Boswell’s staffers and supporters have criticized Fallon for the following four alleged ethical problems:

1. his work and fundraising for the Independence Movement for Iowa (I’M for Iowa)

2. the salary Fallon drew from unspent campaign funds following the 2006 gubernatorial primary

3. allegations that Fallon pondered running for governor as an independent after losing that primary

4. Fallon’s stand against taking contributions from PACs while allowing PACs to encourage their individual members to donate to his campaign.

For my take on the I’M for Iowa allegations, see this diary and this follow-up piece.

Today I will focus on the controversy surrounding the salary Fallon’s gubernatorial campaign paid him following his loss in the June 2006 primary.

Campaigns routinely pay staffers for weeks or months after the race is over. Just last week I spoke to someone who is still working at John Edwards’ headquarters in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, more than two months after Edwards suspended his presidential campaign.

It is more unusual for the candidate to be paid for doing campaign work after the election. No one disputes that Fallon received $13,750 from his gubernatorial campaign between June and November of 2006. The payments are allowed under Iowa law “as long as the candidate is doing work related to the campaign.”

Before drawing any salary from unspent campaign funds, Fallon checked with Charlie Smithson, executive director of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board. According to Fallon, Smithson “assured me that I, along with other staff, could be paid to work on campaign related tasks.” What were those tasks?

Though the campaign was over, there was still plenty of work to do with data entry, file drawers, computer files, and office equipment.  I also wanted to make sure the key issues in my campaign continued to receive attention through the general election.  So, three staff and I stayed on part-time.

Now that this has become an issue in the Boswell-Fallon race, Iowa House representative Rick Olson is leading a charge to ban politicians from taking salaries from campaign funds:

Rep. Rick Olson, a Des Moines Democrat, criticized candidates taking salaries from campaign money. In remarks on the floor of the Iowa House today, he vowed to work with Democratic leaders to introduce legislation known as the “Ed Fallon loophole” to make the payments illegal.

“I find that unbelievable,” Olson said. “If that’s what the law is in the state, that we can pay ourselves salaries after we’ve been defeated. I think that’s a hoax and a sham.”

Smithson declined to comment on the specific situation when contacted by the Des Moines Register, but said that legislators should

take a broader look at the issue. Lawmakers should question if candidates – at any stage during or after their elections – should be able to pay themselves for running for public office, Smithson said.

The Iowa legislature has two “funnel” deadlines for bills, and both have passed this session. In theory, that means that new bills, which have not already been approved by at least one committee, may not be introduced until the 2009 legislative session.

However, the leadership in the Democratic-controlled Iowa House and Senate may try to get Olson’s proposal through this month:

Democratic leaders in the Iowa House and Senate agreed Tuesday to work on a proposal that would make it illegal for political candidates to pay themselves a salary out of campaign contributions.

Brian Meyer, an assistant for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, said Tuesday that the Democratic leader, along with Senate Majority Leader Michael Gronstal, a Council Bluffs Democrat, have agreed to draft legislation to halt such payments. The proposal could be introduced as soon as Thursday, Meyer said.

A deadline has passed for most lawmakers to sponsor new legislation, but bills sponsored by legislative leaders can be introduced at any time and remain eligible for debate.

If legislators push this bill through, I will have written my last check to the House and Senate Democratic leadership funds. It is totally inappropriate to make the Iowa legislature an arm of Leonard Boswell’s re-election campaign.

It is also absurd to treat the so-called “Fallon loophole” as a five-alarm fire when Iowa has no limits on the size of contributions candidates for the legislature or statewide office may accept. That’s right, a wealthy person can write a check of any size to any state legislator’s campaign.

Also, legislative leaders refuse to allow the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections Act (which would create a voluntary public-financing system similar to those used in Maine and Arizona) to move forward.

Fallon responded to this legislative effort in his campaign website blog on April 2. Among other things, he claims lawmakers are getting back at him because his political advocacy organization, I’M for Iowa, has been highly critical of the Democratic leadership in the legislature. He also notes that statehouse Democrats are content to ignore far more serious loopholes in our campaign finance rules.

I’ve put the full text of that blog post after the jump, but here is a relevant excerpt:

The real loophole that needs closing is the one that allows legislative leaders to take hundreds of thousands of dollars from PACs and lobbyists, funnel it to special funds, and then ship it to targeted candidates.  Successful candidates are then reminded by leaders that they won because of the money funneled into their campaigns.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board on April 6 criticized the proposed legislation on different grounds:

A thistle to Democratic legislators who would bar candidates from drawing a salary from campaign donors. This bill (aimed at Ed Fallon, who is challenging Leonard Boswell) is an Incumbent Protection Act. Challengers who give up day jobs to run for office must fend for themselves or be independently wealthy. Meanwhile, the taxpayers support or subsidize incumbents. If contributors want to spend their own money for the care and feeding of a candidate, it is no business of the Iowa Legislature.

Incidentally, Fallon gave up two paying jobs in order to run for governor: his seat in the Iowa House (in a safe Democratic district), and his part-time position as executive director of the non-profit organization 1000 Friends of Iowa (a group I am involved with).

To my mind, the controversy over Fallon’s salary in 2006 is just another facet of Boswell’s effort to direct third district voters’ attention toward anything but how the incumbent has voted during his six terms in Congress.

The Republican presidential candidate is at a big financial disadvantage compared to the likely Democratic nominee.

John Kerry raised over $40 million in March 2004 after clinching the Democratic nomination. He was still far behind George W. Bush in the money race, because the president had not had to compete in the primaries and could devote a lot of time to big-ticket fundraisers.

John McCain clinched the Republican nomination on February 5 and formally won enough delegates to be the nominee on March 4. But he only managed to raise $15 million in March. According to Marc Ambinder, Mitt Romney has promised to help McCain raise another $15 million or so from Romney supporters.

To put that in perspective, Barack Obama raised more than $40 million in March, and Hillary Clinton, who is quite the longshot for the Democratic nomination, managed to raise about $20 million that month.

At MyDD, Jonathan Singer noted that Obama raised more money in March alone than McCain raised in the entire first quarter.

I know a lot of you are worried about the continuing Democratic contest, but I think we should relax and let the rest of the primaries play out. The likelihood is that after Puerto Rico votes on June 7, Obama will be far enough ahead that the superdelegates will move decisively in his direction.

Meanwhile, McCain isn’t going to be building any kind of warchest that Obama can’t match.

The Boswell campaign put out this press release today:

CONTACT: Betsy Shelton

                                                                                            515-238-3356

Congressman Leonard Boswell Receives Endorsement of Building Trades Council

Des Moines, IA – Congressman Leonard Boswell received the endorsement of the Iowa State Building and Construction Trades Council today.  Congressman Boswell continues to fight for issues important to the Building Trades, including building and maintaining infrastructure, and focusing on issues relating to working families.

“I am honored to receive the support of the Building Trades,” said Boswell.  “These hard working men and women share my commitment to protecting working families.”

“As a member of the United States Congress, Leonard Boswell has consistently fought for issues important to the working families of Iowa.  The Iowa State Building and Construction Trades Council is proud to endorse Congressman Boswell because we know his re-election will send a strong advocate for working Iowans back to Washington,” said Bill Gerhard, State Building Trades president.

The Iowa State Building and Construction Trades Council has approximately 35,000 members in Iowa.  The Council represents 15 building trades unions engaged in the construction industry.

It’s not clear from the release how many of those 35,000 members live in the third district.

This endorsement isn’t surprising, in that unions typically back incumbents, and Boswell has gotten all of the trade union endorsements so far in this race.

Additionally, though Fallon was a strong and consistent supporter of organized labor in the Iowa legislature, he has been outspoken against certain new road projects in the state. The Building Trades Council presumably supports all new road projects.

To cite one example that applies to residents of the third district, supporters of a proposed four-lane beltway in northeast Polk County are counting on Boswell, who serves on the House Transportation Committee, to secure substantial federal funding. Fallon opposes building this road, which would be a poor use of transportation funding and would be environmentally harmful as well.

I have seen research showing that maintaining existing infrastructure supports more jobs than building new roads, but I can’t find the link right now. If I can find it tonight, I will add it to this post.

Over at Century of the Common Iowan, noneed4thneed put up a link to the latest Rasmussen poll of Iowa. Holy cow–Obama beats McCain here 46 percent to 42 percent, but Hillary loses to McCain 51 percent to 36 percent. McCain has hardly ever campaigned here and finished fourth in the Republican caucuses. Noneed4thneed noted that Rasmussen found

McCain leads Clinton by a two-to-one margin among unaffiliated voters. However, Obama leads McCain 46% to 37% among those same voters.

The latest round of Survey USA polls had a similar finding (sorry, no link). Obama and Hillary look poised to win a comparable number of electoral votes against McCain, but they do it in different ways. Obama was ahead in Iowa against McCain, but Hillary was trailing the Republican. Assuming Obama is the Democratic nominee, I have to believe he would be heavily favored to win Iowa. Rasmussen's poll may show his lead within the margin of error, but Obama has a huge volunteer army to draw on here from the caucuses, while McCain didn't build any kind of organization in Iowa.

the ad for John McCain you may see on the lower left-hand side of your screen does not in any way, shape or form constitute an endorsement of McCain by this blog.

Bleeding Heartland will strongly support the Democratic nominee this fall.

We are part of the liberal Blogads Network, which is how the ad found its way to this page. If McCain’s campaign wants to throw away its money advertising on liberal blogs, I’m not going to complain.

(UPDATE and correction: Bleeding Heartland founder Drew Miller informs me that the McCain ad was being served by Google, not Blogads. Apparently Drew put up some kind of filter to block johnmccain.com, so the ad will no longer show up on this page.)

My share of all advertising revenues generated by Bleeding Heartland will be donated to BlogPAC, a political action committee run by the bloggers Matt Stoller, Chris Bowers, Mike Stark and Natasha Chart:

http://www.blogpac.com/core

Blogpac funds progressive leadership and experiments with injecting new voices in the political process using internet activism. We give grants, no strings attached, to activists on the internet who have a demonstrated record of success in either creating progressive change or creating the space for progressives to make change. We also seek moments to inject progressive power into the political system through focused internet and new media activism.

Stoller and Bowers used to blog at MyDD and now run the shop at Open Left.

Chart posts on several liberal blogs, including MyDD and Open Left.

Stark is most famous for asking Virginia Senator George Allen (shortly after the “macaca” incident) if he had ever used the n-word. It was a question no mainstream journalist would ever have asked Allen, but the senator’s dishonest reply opened the door to a stream of stories about how Allen had casually used racial slurs in the past.

One of my favorite bloggers, Steve Gilliard, later wrote that Jim Webb owes his Senate seat to Stark, because Stark helped drive a media narrative that was devastating to Allen.

Courtesy of Moveon.Org. Footnotes supporting all these statements, with links, are after the jump.

We need to spread the word that McCain is not a moderate maverick–he is a hard-core conservative. Even my stepmother, who wouldn’t vote for him, was under the mistaken impression that he was pro-choice.

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don’t):

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has “evolved,” yet he’s continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain “will make Cheney look like Gandhi.”2

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3

4. McCain opposes a woman’s right to choose. He said, “I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned.”4

5. The Children’s Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children’s health care bill last year, then defended Bush’s veto of the bill.5

6. He’s one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a “second job” and skip their vacations.6

7. Many of McCain’s fellow Republican senators say he’s too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: “The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He’s erratic. He’s hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”7

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his “spiritual guide,” Rod Parsley, believes America’s founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a “false religion.” McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church “the Antichrist” and a “false cult.”9

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0-yes, zero-from the League of Conservation Voters last year.

UPDATE: DemFromCT wrote a great post today, “McCain Runs Into Trouble On Health Care Reform.” He noted this hilarious headline from the Boston Globe:

McCain camp working out healthcare details

Aides struggle to sort out his promises

One of the biggest scandals in Washington journalism is the media pack’s willingness to cover up John McCain’s legendary temper. The same journalists who happily depicted Al Gore and Howard Dean as angry and unstable rarely mention McCain’s tendency to fly off the handle.

Tom Harkin reminded us of this problem on Thursday:

“Yeah, I’ve been on the receiving end of it and yes, I’ve seen it, and yes, everyone here knows about it,” Harkin said.

“It can be scary,” he said. “Flying off the handle without discussing things with people, working things out … I’ve seen it a couple, three times here.”

McCain claims that what makes him angry is waste and corruption in Washington, but look for stories of his temper tantrums to trickle out in the coming months. This is common knowledge among everyone who has worked in the Senate or the Washington press corps.

On Thursday I wrote about how Ed Fallon’s I’M for Iowa movement has become an issue in the campaign for the Democratic nomination in the third Congressional district.

I am returning to the topic to address some points Chase Martyn raised in an article for Iowa Independent, “FEC disputes Fallon campaign statement,” and in the comment thread below that article. I agree with Chase on a couple of specifics, but disagree with the larger point he is making.

My post included the text of an April 2 press release from Fallon’s campaign titled, “FEC Confirms Boswell’s Allegations Baseless Against Fallon.” It asserted that the information services department of the Federal Election Commission “confirmed that Ed Fallon has done nothing illegal or unethical.”

An FEC spokesperson told Iowa Independent, “No Commission employee made any determination relative to the specific circumstances of any campaign. Only the Commission can make such a determination.”

Reading Fallon’s press release, it appears that a campaign official reviewed the relevant portions of the rules with someone from the FEC in order to confirm the content and/or intent of those rules. But the release should not have claimed the FEC confirmed the Fallon campaign’s position regarding I’M for Iowa.

I have to agree with Chase that this kind of “amateur mistake” is not going to cut it. Fallon’s press shop needs to have an extra copy editor and tighter supervision to make sure nothing like this happens again.

Chase is troubled by the fact that I’M for Iowa is not legally obliged to disclose its donors:

What if Leonard Boswell sent out an email from his personal email account soliciting donations to his personal bank account in exchange for intangible political advocacy services?

Don’t you think Ed Fallon would be the first in line to criticize him for inviting corruption?  Even if, as Fallon says (and I believe him), he respects Boswell and doesn’t think he’s an evil or dishonest man, Boswell’s actions would introduce too many ethical questions to allow him to effectively represent us in Congress.

I agree that if Fallon were elected to Congress, it would be inappropriate for him to continue to raise money for outside political advocacy by I’M for Iowa. In that event, it would be best to shut down I’M for Iowa or transfer it to new ownership outside Fallon’s household, so as not to create any opportunities for (or even the appearance of) corruption.

Chase’s larger point seems to be that Fallon should have made I’M for Iowa a 501(c)4 organization rather than a general partnership.

I don’t know the details about what it takes to set up a 501(c)4 compared to a business like I’M for Iowa. I know from friends who are in the small business world that it gets complicated when you are trying to decide whether to establish a general partnership, an S-corp, a limited liability corporation, etc.  Each variant has pros and cons.

I am involved in several non-profit organizations, and it is frustrating not to be able to take a position on certain issues because of limitations related to 501(c)3 status. While 501(c)4 organizations can undertake political advocacy, the reality is that some controversial issues get overlooked by 501(c)4s as well.

So I see a niche for a business like I’M for Iowa, although as I wrote in my previous post, I have never contributed to I’M for Iowa and haven’t followed its work closely. If people are willing to contribute money to support Fallon’s political advocacy related to CAFOs, eminent domain, coal-fired power plants and so on, I have no problem with that.

It’s not as if I’M for Iowa is hiding what issues it works on.

Chase is concerned that Fallon could evade contribution caps for Congressional candidates by taking unlimited large donations for I’M for Iowa, paying himself a large salary through I’M for Iowa, and then turning around and writing large checks to his own Congressional campaign.

Fallon lives simply and has disclosed his modest income, so it would be a huge red flag if he started writing big checks to his Congressional campaign (which we would learn about from campaign disclosure documents).

Meanwhile, Boswell has already had American taxpayers write large checks to his campaign, in effect, by using his franking privilege to send out three glossy direct-mail pieces that had the look and feel of campaign literature. Those were very different from the typical constituent letter you get from Boswell’s office on regular paper in a regular envelope.

The Des Moines Register has given Boswell a “thistle” for using his franking privilege to send out material that “crashes across” the line between “legitimate constituent communication and overt political campaigning.” I have seen no estimate of how much these mailings cost taxpayers. Will Boswell’s office disclose those numbers?

Chase notes in a comment that

The issue of Boswell receiving corporate PAC money might be of concern to many, but we are only able to complain about it because he is forced to disclose it.

So now I am supposed to be more worried about hypothetical scenarios related to potential I’M for Iowa donations than I am about real, existing sources of Boswell’s campaign funds.

I know from experience that Boswell will often not represent my views on matters of great importance to me. I know that for years I have been getting numerous action alerts from progressive groups urging me to contact Boswell on this or that bill.

Invariably, they are just trying to get Boswell to take the mainstream, majority Democatic position for or against whatever bill is the issue.

Matthew Grimm recently noted in a piece for the Down with Tyranny! blog:

A more sophisticated rating [of Boswell’s voting record] at Progressive Punch’s When The Chips Are Down scale shows that when substantive matters with sharp partisan divides are voted on, Boswell is frequently ready to rubber stamp much of the Bush corporate agenda.

Here is a link to Progressive Punch’s scorecard for all House members. Boswell ranks 188th in terms of his support for progressive stands “when the chips are down.”

I don’t know why Boswell has voted the way he has. I don’t know if it has any relationship to campaign contributions from corporate PACs that promote different policies from the ones I favor. Ultimately, his reason for not consistently representing the Democratic Party’s views and values is irrelevant to me.

I want to worry less about whether my member of Congress will vote with the Democratic majority consistently, particularly if we end up with another four years of a Republican president.

I want to address one more point related to I’M for Iowa. While not claiming that Fallon has broken any laws, the Boswell campaign is trying to undermine the legitimacy of political advocacy work as opposed to a “real job.”

Boswell spokesman Mark Daley has suggested there is something illegitimate about I’M for Iowa:

“If he’s going to run on clean elections, then he should come clean about what he’s doing,” Boswell campaign spokesman Mark Daley said.

[…]

The ethics questions are the latest jab by Boswell ahead of the June 3 primary.

“On the surface, this looks like a fund to give him a job,” Daley said.

I notice a similar theme running through the comments by some Boswell supporters on various blogs: Fallon has never had a “real job.” I object to the idea that political advocacy and community organizing are not real jobs. Furthermore, I am active with 1000 Friends of Iowa, for which Fallon served as executive director for a number of years. Just because it’s in the non-profit sector doesn’t mean it’s not a job.

If Fallon decided to pursue political advocacy work full-time after the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, and people were willing to contribute money to I’M for Iowa, why is that less legitimate than getting people to invest in a different kind of business?

To me this looks like a smokescreen by the Boswell campaign to raise doubts about Fallon.

Why doesn’t Boswell want this campaign to be about his voting record and what he has done as representative for the third district?  

As I’ve noted recently, the primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district has taken a strange turn, whereby the incumbent seems to be trying to make the race primarily about the challenger’s faults rather than the incumbent’s record of service.

I’ve been too busy in non-blog life to write up the day to day sparring following a recent e-mail from Leonard Boswell’s campaign, which attacked Ed Fallon on several fronts.

The criticism of Fallon by Boswell’s surrogates and supporters has focused on four issues in particular:

1. alleged ethical questions related to Fallon’s work for the Independence Movement for Iowa (I’M for Iowa)

2. the salary Fallon drew from unspent campaign funds following the 2006 gubernatorial primary

3. allegations that Fallon pondered running for governor as an independent after losing that primary

4. Fallon’s stand against taking contributions from PACs while allowing PACs to encourage their individual members to donate to his campaign.

I will cover each of those issues in a separate diary, because I don’t have time to write about all of them at once. Today, I will address the allegations related to I’M for Iowa.

Chase Martyn of Iowa Independent published a piece on March 20 called “Fallon Faces Campaign Finance Questions.” Martyn raised questions about I’M for Iowa’s ability to collect unlimited donations without disclosing the sources:

Although I’M For Iowa participates in political advocacy and relies on contributions to stay afloat, its financial status does not fit the typical mold for this type of organization. Rather than registering it as a nonprofit organization with the Internal Revenue Service under sections 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4) or 527, Fallon runs the organization as a for-profit general partnership, making its tax status no different from most home businesses. He and his current campaign manager, Lynn Heuss, co-own the business.

But there is a difference between I’M For Iowa and most typical businesses: Rather than sell products and services to customers, it accepts donations for its political advocacy work. While the donations are not tax-deductible, the business can accept unlimited amounts of money. And because of its tax status, it is not required to disclose information about its sources of funding.

Martyn also noted that two e-mails sent to I’M for Iowa’s distribution list appeared to have promoted Fallon’s Congressional campaign:

On Feb. 29 an e-mail Fallon wrote to his I’M For Iowa group invited readers to visit his campaign Web site and participate in campaign activities to coincide with his 50th birthday. And on Jan. 12 he sent an I’M For Iowa e-mail announcing his candidacy for Congress and providing a lengthy critique of his primary opponent’s voting record.

The result is a complicated question involving the nuances of campaign finance law. Can an unincorporated business accept unlimited contributions without the requirement to disclose its contributors and then use contributed funds to promote a congressional campaign?

Martyn suggested that even if no laws were broken, the questions could hurt Fallon’s image, since he has been a strong advocate of clean-elections laws (such as the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections Act, which would create a voluntary system of public financing of election campaigns).

The Des Moines Register didn’t follow up on the Iowa Independent story until after the Boswell campaign drew attention to it a week later. Thomas Beaumont examined various questions related to I’M for Iowa in the Register on March 29:

The organization is a trade name registered with the Polk County recorder. Small businesses such as lawn care services and other sole proprietorships register this way.

However, some other advocacy organizations, such as the 15-year-old, Des Moines-based State Public Policy Group, is also registered the same way as Fallon’s group.

I’M for Iowa is not a corporation, over which the Iowa secretary of state has regulatory authority.

Fallon’s group does not have to report its sources of money or what kind of business it is. But it receives no money from corporations, said Lynn Heuss, Fallon’s partner in the organization.

It runs on contributions from individuals who support its agenda, which includes limiting large livestock confinements, curbing global warming, promoting campaign finance reform and preventing abuse of eminent domain.

It seems clear that there is no legal barrier to using the I’M for Iowa e-mail list to promote Fallon’s Congressional campaign.

Martyn wrote in Iowa Independent:

A representative of the Federal Elections Commission would not comment on any matters that regulators may have to rule on, but FEC regulations do not seem to explicitly prohibit coordination between a campaign and an unincorporated business entity owned by a candidate.

Beaumont’s March 29 article for the Register notes that

Campaign finance law bars corporate contributions from federal races. However, the law specifies corporations and limited liability companies, which Fallon’s group is not.

According to a press release from Fallon’s campaign on April 2, the information services department of the Federal Election Commission “confirmed that Ed Fallon has done nothing illegal or unethical.” The full text of that release is after the jump, but here is a relevant excerpt:

Fallon campaign manager, Lynn Heuss, provided the rules the campaign reviewed with the FEC Information Officer: From the FEC Candidate Guide, Chapter 4, Section 10, “Partnerships are permitted to make contributions according to special rules. 110.1(e) and (k)(1). For further details, see Appendix B.”

In addition, Chapter 4, Section 12 of the FEC Candidate’s Guide says, “When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns. Unlike other contributions, these candidate contributions are not subject to any limits. 110.10; AOs 1991-9, 1990-9, 1985-33 and 1985-60. They must, however, be reported (as discussed below).” And a little further down under “Definition of a Candidate’s “Personal Funds” it says, “The personal funds of a candidate include: Assets which the candidate has a legal right of access to or control over, and which he or she has legal title to or an equitable interest in, at the time of candidacy; income from employment; ….”

Heuss clarified the only contribution the business has made is sending out two email messages, which constitute an in-kind donation, and is not in violation of FEC regulation.

(UPDATE: Chase Martyn reported on April 3 that the FEC denied making “any determination relative to the specific circumstances of any campaign”. Martyn added that Iowa Independent had merely questioned the ethics of how I’M for Iowa was used and not alleged that any laws were broken.)

If no laws were broken, what is the problem? The Boswell campaign has tried to suggest that there is something underhanded about I’M for Iowa. From the Register’s March 29 article:

“If he’s going to run on clean elections, then he should come clean about what he’s doing,” Boswell campaign spokesman Mark Daley said.

[…]

The ethics questions are the latest jab by Boswell ahead of the June 3 primary.

“On the surface, this looks like a fund to give him a job,” Daley said.

Although I’ve donated to Fallon’s gubernatorial and Congressional campaigns, I have never contributed money to I’M for Iowa. As a result, I haven’t followed the organization’s work very closely.

But if individuals want to give money to help Fallon advocate for clean elections, or organize opposition to coal-fired power plants and CAFOs, what is the problem?  

Non-profit organizations are unable or unwilling to take a position on some kinds of political disputes, so there is a niche for a business like I’M for Iowa.

Does the Boswell campaign mean to suggest that advocacy work is not a real job? That seems strange. Barack Obama’s supporters and television commercials have praised that candidate for working as a community organizer after finishing law school.

Frankly, I’m a little surprised the Boswell campaign wants to go down this road, since Boswell’s campaign accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporate PACs in 2007 alone. I’m supposed to be concerned about the hidden agenda of individuals who have contributed to I’M for Iowa?

Asked to comment in the Register article of March 29, Fallon characterized the allegations as typical establishment politics:

“The political establishment attacks a candidate on his strength,” Fallon said. “My strength is my commitment to issues. They are looking for ways to discredit me.”

Fallon’s campaign addressed the controversy in more detail in statements released on March 31 and April 2. The full text of those press releases are after the jump.

I just got a robo-call from Governor Chet Culver inviting me to a fundraiser that he and Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge are hosting for Congressman Leonard Boswell this Saturday, April 5.

The event starts at 6:30 pm at the Hotel Fort Des Moines (10th and Walnut in Des Moines). The Too Many Strings Band will perform.

I received an invitation to this event in the mail two or three weeks ago. It looks like they are expecting contributions of at least $25 to Boswell for Congress, with hosts, sponsors and patrons donating at higher levels.

If any Bleeding Heartland readers attend this fundraiser, please put up a diary afterwards to let us know how it went, how big the crowd was, and anything interesting the speakers may have said.

I expect they will raise quite a lot of money for Boswell’s campaign this Saturday.

Be glad Hillary Clinton didn’t take the advice of the Barack Obama supporters who have been urging her to drop out for more than a month now.

Democrats are making huge gains in voter registration in Pennsylvania, a must-win state for our nominee this fall.

Does anyone think this would be happening if both candidates weren’t working the state hard in the runup to the primary?

Smintheus has more on the Pennsylvania trends at Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

And Jonathan Singer adds some useful analysis on Pennsylvania at MyDD:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

I didn’t see this last week, because despite my requests, the Boswell campaign is still not sending their press releases to me (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com). But on Friday the United Auto Workers came out for Boswell in the Democratic primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district. Via Iowa True Blue, here is the release from the campaign:

Des Moines, IA – Congressman Leonard Boswell received the support of the Iowa United Auto Workers State Community Action League (CAP) today.  “I’m honored and proud to have earned the support of the UAW,” said Boswell.  “These hard working men and women share my commitment to protecting working families, making college more affordable, creating jobs that can’t be outsourced and bringing health care to every American.”

“Leonard Boswell stood by our side time and time again in pushing for CAFE standards that help the environment, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and produce manufacturing jobs across our country,” said Dennis Walker, President of the Iowa UAW State CAP.  “He fought to stop the sale of Maytag when our jobs were attacked, and has worked tirelessly to bring jobs back to the Newton area.”

The UAW has approximately 30,000 active and retired members in Iowa.

It’s not clear how many UAW members in Iowa live in the third district. There used to be a sizable number in Jasper County, but that was before Maytag closed.

So far Boswell has swept the union endorsements, including the Service Employees International Union, despite Ed Fallon’s rock-solid voting record on labor. It’s extremely rare for unions to back a challenger in a primary.

How many foot soldiers will these unions provide for Boswell this spring? I think he will need the help to match the volunteers organized by the Fallon campaign.

Typically, a challenger needs to run a somewhat negative campaign in order to convince voters to reject the incumbent. The incumbent normally is content to ignore the challenger and run on his or her record of service.

In Iowa’s third Congressional district, a strange role reversal is underway, in which Ed Fallon is calling on Leonard Boswell’s campaign to “stop the negative attacks.”

Last week I posted the text of an e-mail from Boswell, which charged that Fallon is “no Democrat” and “has never acted in the best interest of our party.”

On March 24, Fallon issued a press release and a letter to his supporters responding to the attacks from the Boswell camp. It once again addresses Fallon’s support for Ralph Nader in 2000, and also responds to claims that Fallon’s work for I’M for Iowa has run afoul of ethical or campaign finance rules.

I am working on another post about the financing of the Boswell and Fallon campaigns, and will write more about allegations surrounding Fallon and I’M for Iowa in the near future.

For now, I will note that the Boswell campaign probably would not have stepped up the attacks on Fallon in March if their internal polling and voter contacts were encouraging. (I got a call from a field organizer for Boswell during the first week of March, and my husband got a call from an organizer for Boswell this past week.)

An incumbent who is not worried doesn’t go after a challenger this way two months before the primary.

When the first public poll of this race is released, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Fallon within striking distance of Boswell.

The full text of Fallon’s press release of March 24 is after the jump.

I was going to write another post chiding certain Obama supporters for their overheated rhetoric about the evil Clintons (who apparently are now even worse than Joe McCarthy).

Instead, I will attempt to spark a more constructive discussion of the best way to make the case against John McCain in the general election.

Daily Kos star diarist clammyc is absolutely right: “We don’t need a nominee to focus on our opponent”:

But while way too much energy, time, money and focus is spent on the back-and-forth and the less-than really important issues that are facing this country, or the enormous hypocrisy of just about everything that John W. McCain has been saying or doing is getting either ignored or fluffed over, precious time is being wasted to frame McCain and “rebrand him” as the man he is and has become as opposed to the man he once was and represented.

The question is, what is the best way to “rebrand” McCain? There are some good ideas in that clammyc diary.

Jason Rosenbaum wrote a great piece for Open Left, How to Attack John McCain: A Search Study,” which evaluates various frames:

   * John McCain as old and unstable

   * John McCain as angry, with a temper, a hothead

   * John McCain as a war hawk who’ll keep us in Iraq forever

   * John McCain as confused and unprepared (can’t tell the difference between Iran and Al-Qaeda for instance)

   * John McCain as weak and unprepared on economic issues

   * John McCain and his association with radical fundamentalist pastors like John Hagee

   * John McCain as a flip-flopper or sellout

If quantitative analysis isn’t your thing, you might enjoy kid oakland’s half-joking “twenty thoughts about John McCain.”

Finally, for a laugh read Moody Loner’s Dr. Seuss-style poem, “I Will Not Vote for John McCain.”

Consider this an open thread on the best way to run against McCain.

John Deeth wrote a great piece for Iowa Independent about “The Battleground Districts” that will decide who controls the Iowa legislature.

You might want to bookmark this analysis of five House races and 10 Senate races for future reference.

I received an e-mail from Kurt Meyer’s campaign in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district, and it mentioned that incumbent Tom Latham is one of the Republicans being targeted by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

I hadn’t realized that the DCCC planned to put resources into flipping that seat. It will be an uphill battle, but if the climate is right for Democratic candidates nationwide and in Iowa, it should be within reach.

I am staying out of the primary battle in IA-04, but I plan to donate $100 to the campaign of the winner of that primary. I would love to see that district turn blue.

While digging around on the DCCC’s website for more information, I noticed that they have also named Leonard Boswell as one of 29 “frontline Democrats.” I do not know whether that means the DCCC will put resources into the primary race in IA-03.

Here is the ActBlue page the DCCC set up for all of its “frontline Democrats”:

http://www.actblue.com/page/fr…

Here is a map you can use to find all of the districts the DCCC is targeting this year, either for pickups or defense:

http://dccc.org/page/content/r…

UPDATE: brownsox analyzes the list at Daily Kos and says the DCCC is targeting 59 Republican-held seats for pickups and 31 Democratic seats for defense:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

I just got an e-mail from Leonard Boswell’s campaign. It confirms my belief that they are very worried about Ed Fallon’s primary challenge.

Most of the e-mail contains negative information about Fallon, including a lead paragraph citing Fallon’s support for Ralph Nader in 2000 and a closing paragraph stating flatly, “Ed Fallon is no Democrat.”

Positive information about Boswell makes up a small portion of the message, mostly near the bottom. It mentions that Knowlegis has ranked him the 135th most powerful member of the U.S. House, making him “more powerful than nearly 70 percent of other Members of Congress.”

It also cites Boswell’s endorsements from AFSCME, SEIU, the Des Moines Police Association, Des Moines Association of Professional Fire Fighters, and UAW, as well as his support from Senator Tom Harkin, Governor Chet Culver, Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge, Congressman Bruce Braley and Congressman Dave Loebsack.

The message mentions Boswell’s loyalty to the Democratic Party twice.

I would like the incumbent to address his tendency of voting with the majority of House Republicans, and contrary to the majority of House Democrats, on issues such as:

the 2005 bankruptcy bill

the 2005 energy bill

permanent repeal of the estate tax

the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping

weakening the right of habeas corpus

I would also like to know why I continually get action alerts from environmental groups asking me to contact Boswell about this or that bill, when Braley and Loebsack seem to know instinctively what position to take on these bills without getting a barrage of phone calls from constituents.

Boswell’s e-mail also features an article by Chase Martyn for Iowa Independent: Fallon Faces Campaign Finance Questions (that link works, although the link in Boswell’s e-mail was broken). I will write more about that piece in a forthcoming post about the financing of the Boswell and Fallon campaigns.

The full text of the Boswell campaign’s e-mail is after the jump.

Global warming is making spring come earlier in much of the United States:

And sneezes are coming earlier in Philadelphia. On March 9, when allergist Dr. Donald Dvorin set up his monitor, maple pollen was already heavy in the air. Less than two decades ago, that pollen couldn’t be measured until late April.

Pollen is bursting. Critters are stirring. Buds are swelling. Biologists are worrying.

“The alarm clock that all the plants and animals are listening to is running too fast,” Stanford University biologist Terry Root said.

Blame global warming.

The fingerprints of man-made climate change are evident in seasonal timing changes for thousands of species on Earth, according to dozens of studies and last year’s authoritative report by the Nobel Prize-winning international climate scientists. More than 30 scientists told The Associated Press how global warming is affecting plants and animals at springtime across the country, in nearly every state.

But look on the bright side: Iowa legislator Dwayne Alons (Republican, of course) says we don’t need to worry about global warming in this age of air conditioning and refrigeration technology.

By the way, James Van Bruggen is running against Alons in House District 4, which is in the northwest corner of the state.

The answer depends on what state you’re looking at.

Recent polling suggests that Barack Obama has been running much better than Hillary Clinton against John McCain in states such as Iowa and Colorado.

However, that appears not to be the case in some other important swing states. Survey USA released three new state polls:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/…

In Ohio, Clinton beats McCain 50-44, but McCain beats Obama 50-43.

In Missouri, McCain leads Clinton 48-46 (within margin of error), and McCain leads Obama 53-39.

In Kentucky, McCain leads Clinton 53-43 and leads Obama 64-28. Obviously, Democrats are not going to carry Kentucky in the presidential race, but there may be some close Congressional races in that state. Who is going to be better for our down-ticket candidates?

For the record, I think both Clinton and Obama could beat McCain or lose to McCain. I have no idea who has a better chance of getting 270 electoral votes. I do think Obama runs a greater risk of losing in a Dukakis-style blowout than Clinton does.

Right now I’m pessimistic about either of them being able to win the general, in part because of the way our primary is now all about identity politics rather than issues.

On the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Stop the Arms Race Political Action Committee (STAR*PAC) endorsed Ed Fallon in the Democratic primary in Iowa’s third Congressional district.

From a Fallon campaign press release:

“STAR*PAC believes that Ed Fallon understands the challenges we face in the 21st century and is the best-equipped candidate to represent the Third District in the difficult times ahead.”

Additionally, they stated, “we remain concerned that Rep. Boswell has too often supported the Administration’s war policy by voting to authorize the war, and voting to continue funding without timelines for troop withdrawal.”

Fallon’s campaign will not receive any monetary donation from STAR*PAC, in keeping with his policy of not accepting funds from PACs.

The full release is after the jump.

As I’ve written before, I believe that some compromise must be found to seat delegates from Michigan and Florida at the Democratic National Convention.

By “compromise,” I don’t mean the Obama campaign’s proposal to give both Clinton and Obama 50 percent of the delegates from each state, which would disregard the will of the people. I mean a compromise that would reflect how Democrats in those states voted.

I was open to a re-vote, but that idea has been killed in Florida and appears less and less likely in Michigan.

Obama supporter Gordon Fischer celebrates the way they Obama campaign ran out the clock on re-votes.

Obama supporter noneed4thneed doesn’t see why Obama should back a re-vote in Michigan.

Obama supporter Chris Bowers made a much stronger case that Obama should want a re-vote in Michigan, since it would very likely allow him to wrap up the nomination in June rather than having things drag out to a floor fight at the convention.

To my mind, the key question should be not what is best for Obama, but the principle of counting people’s votes and the pragmatic need for Democrats not to alienate voters in two large states.

We cannot afford to go into the general election having angered Democrats in Michigan and Florida, particularly since both Obama and Clinton currently trail John McCain in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

New polls suggest that an overwhelming majority of Florida Democrats want their votes to be counted, and one-fourth of them may leave the Democratic Party if that does not happen.

Look, Obama fans, if you are so confident that your guy will hold on to his lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, you should have been lobbying for re-votes. Now that a re-vote is off the table for Florida and possibly Michigan, you should be open to some compromise that reflects the way Democrats voted (such as cutting the number of delegates from each state in half).

This situation is screwed up, and many parties are to blame, but the rank-and-file Democrats in those states did not create this problem.

It will be suicide for Obama to go into the general telling Michigan and Florida voters, “I’m sorry, you broke the rules, I don’t care about letting you have a say in the primaries.”