On Wednesday, March 19, Ed Fallon is holding a town-hall meeting on Iraq and veterans’ issues from 8:30 to 9:30 am at the Old Fire Station #4, 1041 8th St., Des Moines.

I can’t go to this event, but if any Bleeding Heartland readers are able to attend, please put up a comment to let us know how it went.

Whether or not you can go to this meeting, how important do you think the Iraq war will be in the IA-03 primary?

I missed this last week, but Daily Kos user mcfly brought it to my attention: a Republican has filed to run for Congress in Iowa’s third Congressional district.

Today, Clive Republican Kim Schmett announced his run for United States Congress in the 3rd Congressional District.

Schmett, 55, says the district needs a representative who will fight for lower taxes, fiscal responsibility and more quality jobs for Iowa workers.

“My goal in Congress is to rein in spending, so people can keep the money they have worked so hard to earn,” said Schmett. “They should be able to spend it on their families, not support a bloated government. For far too long, government has failed to weed out inefficiencies and waste. Congress just passed a Democrat budget bill that will cut the earned income credit in half and increase an average family’s taxes by $3,000 dollars. Too often, politicians forget that it’s the people’s money first, not theirs.”

Schmett, a veteran of the U.S. Army, is the executive director of the state association for children’s homes and shelters. He is the former director of the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals, and served as the chief of staff for former Congressman Greg Ganske.

In a rare post not related to Barack Obama, Gordon Fischer put up a press release from Leonard Boswell’s campaign over at Iowa True Blue. (Note to the Boswell campaign: please start sending your press releases to desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.)

The release notes that the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy recently gave Boswell a 100 percent 90 percent “A” grade for his work on behalf of the middle class. Boswell’s campaign also mentioned that a different group recently named him the most powerful U.S. representative from Iowa, and was ranked the 135th most powerful person among the 435 members of the U.S. House.

You can find more details about how the Drum Major Institute compiled its Congressional scorecard on middle class issues, as well as ratings for all 535 members of Congress, by clicking here.

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

The national organization eQualityGiving, “The Online Donor Community for LGBT Equality,” has endorsed Ed Fallon in the Democratic primary in Iowa’s third Congressional district. A press release from Fallon’s campaign notes that eQualityGiving has endorsed only nine federal candidates this year, and that Fallon is the “only candidate in the nation to earn this endorsement twice.”

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

I thought I could break myself in here with a little background info about myself and mission.  I'll do my best, time permitting, to keep up with posting on a regular basis.  I am running my campaign myself.  We cannot afford paid staffers to take care of these types of things, so I hope you will all bear with me.

In the Sunday opinion section, the Des Moines Register editorial board gave Leonard Boswell a “thistle” for using his franking privilege to send out a brochure that “crashes across” the line between “legitimate constituent communication and overt political campaigning.”

Ed Fallon has already complained about Boswell sending out campaign communications at the taxpayers’ expense.

From time to time I’m posting about the IA-03 primary at Daily Kos, MyDD and Open Left. If you’d like to join the conversation there, please leave a comment on the threads below my latest installment:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

http://www.openleft.com/showDi…

Democrat Bill Foster won today’s special election to serve out the remainder of this term representing Illinois’ 14th Congressional district:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert resigned from the seat, forcing the special election.

The NRCC spent more than $1 million, about 20 percent of its cash on hand, to defend this red district, and still lost the seat.

Keep in mind that more than two dozen Republicans in the U.S. House are retiring this year, forcing the GOP to defend a lot of open seats. The DCCC’s fundraising is strong, putting Democrats in a good position to expand their majority in the House.

Anyone still worried that Republicans will be able to mount an effective challenge for Iowa’s third district in case Ed Fallon defeats Leonard Boswell in the primary?

About a month ago, Ed Fallon’s campaign issued a press release criticizing Leonard Boswell for sending out a mass mailer on environmental issues. Key excerpt:

“Boswell is trying to paint himself as an environmentalist,” Fallon said, “but his voting record says otherwise. And for him to mail campaign literature on the public’s tab is flat out wrong.”

The mailing focuses on Boswell’s vote in December for the Energy Independence and Security Act that raises fuel efficiency standards to 35 mpg by 2020. However, in 2001 when House Democrats tried to raise these same CAFE standards to 27.5 mpg by 2007, Boswell joined Republicans to defeat the proposal (08/01/01). “Boswell’s reversal of position, Fallon said, “came only after he learned I might be running against him.” He said the same was true of Boswell’s support for the Safe Climate Act, which was introduced in March 2007. “It took until December – nine months – for Boswell to decide to support the legislation,” Fallon said.

It’s probably good politics for Fallon to complain about Boswell sending out campaign-style fliers at taxpayer expense, but let’s face it–the franking privilege is one of the advantages of incumbency. It’s not realistic to expect Boswell not to use this advantage during the primary campaign.

I never saw that Boswell mailer on the environment–presumably it got tossed in the recycling bin. However, this week I got a piece from Boswell about economic issues. It has the look and feel of a campaign mailing, but the small print says, “This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.”

After the jump I have transcribed this week’s mailer for the benefit of readers who are following this race closely but don’t live in the third Congressional district.

As I mentioned on Tuesday, Leonard Boswell convened a town-hall meeting by telephone on Tuesday, but I was not able to participate.

The Des Moines Register reported that Boswell took questions for about an hour during the call. The only specific question the Register mentioned related to Boswell’s vote for the 2005 bankruptcy bill, which most Democrats in Congress opposed:

“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.

The bankruptcy bill vote is one of many Ed Fallon has criticized in his primary challenge of Boswell.

I hope to be able to listen in on one of Boswell’s telephone town-hall meetings, assuming he has more.

Fallon held live town-hall meetings yesterday in Tama, Amana and Des Moines. If anyone attended one, please post a comment or a diary to let us know how it went. Fallon has more town-hall meetings scheduled for next Wednesday, and I’ve put the details after the jump.

While we’re on the subject, I want to address something I’ve heard from a handful of Democrats I know about this primary. A few people have told me that they won’t defend Boswell’s voting record, and they would like to support a primary challenger, just not Ed Fallon. Maybe they don’t like that Fallon supported Ralph Nader in 2000, or maybe they have some other issue with something Fallon did years ago in the state legislature.

Let’s be clear: the choice for Iowa’s third district is Boswell or Fallon, not Boswell or some fantasy liberal who has never made a mistake.

Democrats willing to run against well-funded, entrenched incumbents do not grow on trees. If you want to see a more progressive Democrat representing Iowa’s third district, you should be supporting Fallon now. If he loses the primary, you can be sure that no one will ever challenge Boswell in a primary again.

Whenever Boswell retires, which could be many years from now, there will be a crowded Democratic primary for this seat, and there is no guarantee a progressive will win.

If you like Boswell and on balance think he deserves to be re-elected, that’s understandable. But if you would rather support a different kind of Democrat for this seat, get behind Fallon now. Don’t hide behind the excuse that you’d rather support some other primary challenger some other year.

MyDD user lipris linked to this post from the Albany Project blog, which includes a list of the 24 Democratic-held U.S. House seats being targeted this year by the NRCC.

None of the three House seats held by Iowa Democrats are on the list. Neither Bruce Braley (IA-01) nor Leonard Boswell (IA-03) has a Republican challenger yet. Braley is officially launching his re-election campaign today. Boswell is facing a primary challenge from Ed Fallon.

I think that Dave Loebsack (IA-02) has a Republican challenger, but I can’t find the link to an article about that. I would be shocked if he has any trouble holding his seat. He will have the army of Obama volunteers helping him if the challenge turns out to be serious.

It looks like a very good year for Iowa Democrats. The caucuses in January prompted nearly 60,000 people to register as Democrats, while only about 7,600 Iowans became Republicans to participate in the GOP caucuses. According to Secretary of State Mike Mauro,

as of March 1, there were 701,285 registered Democrats in Iowa. There were 615,576 Iowans registered as Republicans and 761,201 not affiliated with a party.

Meanwhile, at MyDD Jonathan Singer discusses the GOP’s voter registration problem on the national level.

Within the last hour I got a robocall from Leonard Boswell informing me about some kind of telephone town-hall meeting tonight.

Was anyone able to listen in on this call? I am curious.

I am pretty sure that the robocall directed me to Boswell’s Congressional website (boswell.house.gov) for more information–not to the campaign website (www.boswellforcongress.com).

Then, about 20 minutes ago I got my first phone call from a field organizer for Boswell. I was frank with him, saying I’ve supported Leonard in the past and like him, but he’s voted against my interests too many times. I’m going for Fallon in the primary and will support the winner of the primary in the general. The field organizer was polite and thanked me for being direct.

Boswell is taking this primary challenge seriously, and that’s good for residents of the third district. Obviously, I hope Fallon wins the primary, but even if he doesn’t, I think the challenge will nudge Boswell toward better serving his constituents.

UPDATE: A franked mailer from Boswell arrived in the mail on Wednesday afternoon. It certainly looks like a campaign piece–I will transcribe it later. The small print makes clear that it was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.

Ed Fallon turns 50 this Saturday, and his campaign has set an ambitious goal of collecting $50 from at least 1,000 donors to mark the occasion.

Everyone who gives $50 to the campaign will receive Fallon’s mother’s recipe for “killer apple pie.” You can contribute here:

http://www.actblue.com/page/50…

The campaign also has a number of public events scheduled for Saturday to mark Fallon’s birthday. I’m putting the details after the jump.  

I got an e-mail today from Democracy for America, confirming that they are backing Ed Fallon in the primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district. Excerpt:

Last Tuesday, our Primaries Matter campaign delivered results and helped lead Donna Edwards to a resounding 24-point victory over Bush-Democrat Al Wynn in MD-04.

Ed Fallon is the next DFA-List endorsement and he’s taking on Bush-Democrat, Rep. Leonard Boswell in IA-03.

Contribute $20.08 right now and support a Democrat with the backbone to stand up for progressive values.

http://www.actblue.com/page/su…

Ed Fallon is a true progressive and he has a record of beating out-of-touch Democrats in Iowa. In 1992, he beat 10-year incumbent Gary Sherzan with 63% of the vote and became a State Representative. When the conservative party establishment tried to primary Ed out of the state legislature, Ed won again with 68% of the vote.

Now, with your help, Ed will beat Bush-Democrat Leonard Boswell. Here’s a breakdown of some of the important differences between them.

The chart didn’t come through well when I copied and pasted. Here’s what it showed in Fallon’s column:

The War in Iraq: opposed Bush’s war from the start and believes we need a more diplomatic approach to foreign policy, not just in Iraq but throughout the Middle East

Campaign Funding: has never accepted money from lobbyists

Spying on Americans: opposes Bush’s warrantless wiretapping of innocent Americans

The Climate Crisis: supports a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants and has lead the fight against government handouts to big business in Iowa

No Child Left Behind: is against this unfunded, ineffective Bush-mandate, and will work to get it repealed

On those same issues, here’s what Democracy for America listed in the Boswell column:

-voted for the Iraq War and has continued to support additional funding with no timetable to bring the troops home

-accepts donations from lobbyists

-voted for increased warrantless surveillance on the American people

-voted to provide $14 billion in tax breaks and incentives for oil and gas companies and supports greater use of coal

-voted for [No Child Left Behind] and did not fund it or attempt to repeal it

I don’t know how many members Democracy for America has, but it will be interesting to see how much money this appeal raises for Fallon’s campaign. Donna Edwards’ convincing victory may make people more willing to invest in another primary challenger.

By the way, John Deeth has a piece up at Iowa Independent about the role Boswell and 20 other “Blue dog” Democrats played in yesterday’s House debate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Deeth’s piece linked to a post by Matt Browner Hamlin, who confirmed that all 21 House Democrats who cooperated with the Republicans on FISA have received contributions from the telecom industry. Boswell has received $5,000 in campaign contributions from AT&T.

UPDATE: I checked the page at ActBlue that Democracy for America set up for donations to Fallon. As of 2:25 pm, this appeal has raised $10,417 for Fallon from 305 donors. That’s impressive. I’m sure the total will increase substantially this evening, which is when many people have their internet time.

SECOND UPDATE: As of 10:30 pm, this appeal has raised $20,024 for Fallon from 582 donors. That’s an average of just under $35 per donor. Looks like a lot of those people will be willing and able to donate again before this race is over.

Paging Ed Fallon: Leonard Boswell may be making a big mistake, according to mcjoan’s diary on the fight over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. She says that “House Republicans will try to derail the effort to pass a 21 day extension of the existing surveillance law and force a vote on the Senate bill.”

She cites this piece in CQpolitics:

As the House turned to a 21-day extension of a temporary law governing electronic surveillance, Republicans prepared a motion to force a vote on the long-term version passed Tuesday by the Senate.

House Republicans engineered a series of procedural votes Wednesday in a bid to derail the Democrats’ proposed extension, which President Bush said he would veto. They argued that the House should simply take up and send to the White House a surveillance overhaul bill that the Senate passed by 68-29.

Because 21 conservative Blue Dog Democrats have endorsed the Senate-passed bill, Republicans might be able to win approval of the Senate bill through a motion to recommit the extension with instructions to amend it with the text of the Senate bill.

Yes, Boswell is in that group of 21 House Democrats. Not only that, the same 21 Democrats wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi on January 28, supporting retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies and other measures in the FISA bill that cleared the Senate.

mcjoan asked Daily Kos readers to contact the 21 Democrats. Here is the information for Boswell:

Phone: (202) 225-3806, Fax: (202) 225-5608

If you contact Boswell’s office, tell him to vote with House Democrats in support of the House version of the FISA bill, which is called the RESTORE Act.

Normally, I am not overly optimistic about calls to members of Congress making a difference, but Boswell is heading into a tough primary.

He can do the right thing for our civil liberties, which is also the smart move politically, or he can go with his fellow Blue Dogs giving cover to the Republican Party.

UPDATE: Paul Kiel has more on what happened in the House today. Boswell and the others don’t look like profiles in courage:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi…

The netroots got very involved in two primaries so far this year. Mark Pera was challenging “Bush dog” Dan Lipinski in Illinois’ 3rd Congressional district. He ran a spirited campaign but lost by double-digits in the February 5 primary.

Donna Edwards came within a few percentage points of beating Al Wynn, one of the worst corporate Democrats in Congress, in Maryland’s 4th district primary two years ago.

This year she was backed not just by bloggers, but also by the SEIU, EMILY’s list, and Democracy for America. She even got the Washington Post’s endorsement.

The final returns aren’t in yet, but the media have already called the MD-04 primary for Edwards. It just goes to show that sometimes, a challenger can beat an entrenched incumbent.

Will the netroots and Democracy for America get behind Ed Fallon now? I hope so, although I must add that Leonard Boswell (disappointing as he can be) is nowhere near as disloyal to progressive causes as Wynn.

Governor Chet Culver has agreed to back Secretary of State Mike Mauro’s plan “to use state money to help counties switch to one uniform system with paper ballots,” the Des Moines Register reported on Saturday:

Culver said he has put together a “working group” that includes Mauro, lawmakers and Culver’s staff. They will try to figure out how to get counties equipped with optical scan machines that count paper ballots – as he has long advocated for, he said.

Good for him. As I’ve written before, spending money on equipment that would print receipts for touchscreen voting machines would just throw good money after bad. Better to ensure that every Iowan votes with a paper ballot, which can be recounted if necessary.

Also on Friday, Culver endorsed incumbent Leonard Boswell in the Democratic primary for Iowa’s third Congressional district:

He called Boswell a “dear friend” whose military background is valuable on national security issues, although he said he respects Fallon and supports the idea of competitive political races.

Meanwhile, the Register tries to make news by noting that Culver has refused to rule out running for president someday.

Come on, reporters. He’s barely a year into his first term, and with any luck we’re about to elect a Democrat who will serve as president until 2012 or 2016. Let Culver get a term or two under his belt before you start asking him whether he’ll run for president.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has raised more than $7.6 million since the Super Tuesday primaries, and Hillary Clinton’s campaign claims to have raised more than $4 million in the past two days.

It’s incredible to see these candidates’ supporters coming out in droves to contribute, and it should bode well for our nominee going into the general election.

At the same time, I urge anyone who has donated to a presidential campaign to set some money aside for worthy candidates seeking other offices.

As I’ve mentioned before, I am supporting Ed Fallon in the Democratic primary for Iowa’s third Congressional district. The incumbent, Leonard Boswell, has a huge money advantage, but as noneed4thneed recently pointed out in this thread, Fallon raised more money from individuals in January than Boswell raised from individuals in the whole fourth quarter of 2007.

If you are so inclined, you can donate to Fallon’s campaign through ActBlue.

Or, if you prefer not to get involved in this primary, I encourage you to seek out and support one of the many fine Democrats challenging incumbent Republicans this year.

For instance, in this diary RDemocrat makes the case for Heather Ryan, a candidate for Congress in KY-01 facing “one of the worst Congressmen in the land, Exxon Ed Whitfield.”

There are many state and local races worth donating to this year as well. In fact, a donation of a few hundred dollars to a statehouse candidate is more likely to make a difference than a donation to a presidential campaign that’s already raised more than $100 million.

I will be writing a check this week to the campaign of Jerry Sullivan, who is running in Iowa House district 59. It’s an open seat that leans slightly Republican, but Sullivan is a great guy with outstanding qualifications and experience in public service as well as the business community. I think he’s got an excellent shot to win my district for the Democrats.

Consider this an open thread to tell us which campaigns you plan to support this year.

As we all knew would be the case, Leonard Boswell is going to have plenty of money for this campaign. According to Federal Election Commission records, Boswell has more than $730,000 in the bank:

he raised about $131,000 during the last quarter of 2007, with $101,000 coming from political action committees.

Through 2007, he has raised about $730,000, of which $540,000 came from PACs, or close to 74 percent of his contributions.

I’m surprised that such a large proportion of the money came from PACs. I’m sure there will be much more where that came from in Q1 and Q2 of this year.

The Fallon for Congress website is still under construction, but you can donate to his campaign through ActBlue if you are so inclined.

I read on the front page of Wednesday’s Des Moines Register that this week, Representative Leonard Boswell introduced legislation directing the U.S. Postal Service to create a unique zip code for my suburb of Windsor Heights.

As we’ve discussed here at Bleeding Heartland, a recent survey of Windsor Heights residents showed that 99 percent are satisfied with the quality of life in Windsor Heights, and 89 percent described the city services and quality of life as “above average.”

Apparently the most frequent complaint city officials hear from residents is the lack of a unique zip code. Windsor Heights has three different zip codes; two mostly cover neighborhoods in Des Moines, and one mostly covers parts of Urbandale.

According to the Register on Wednesday,

Confusion between the ZIP codes and city boundaries has caused mail to be undelivered or returned to senders, has caused difficulty in tracking sex offenders, and has created problems for businesses.

Despite pleas from Windsor Heights city officials, U.S. postal officials have remained adamant that the suburb will not get its own ZIP code. Postal officials say the town has too few residents and doesn’t have a stand-alone post office. The city receives its mail from three post offices in Des Moines and Urbandale.

The article goes on to note that more than 100 Iowa cities and towns with smaller populations than Windsor Heights have unique zip codes, but that’s not the point of this post.

I personally know Windsor Heights residents who asked Boswell’s office years ago to help us get a zip code.

He just introduced a bill on the subject this week.

It’s too early to know whether Boswell’s proposed legislation has any chance of passing, or even getting out of the House Government Oversight and Reform subcommittee.

“We hope it will go forward, and the congressman will work hard with his colleagues in the House to get it moving,” Boswell spokeswoman McAvoy said.

Looks to me like this is another reason to thank Ed Fallon for challenging Boswell in the primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district.  

Last weekend a friend and fellow Edwards precinct captain left a message for me saying he'd been polled on the Boswell-Fallon race. On Wednesday evening, as I was cooking dinner, I got the same call. About an hour after that, the Obama precinct captain in my neighborhood called to let me know that she wants to volunteer for Fallon. She had just gotten the same survey call, which jogged her memory that she'd been meaning to call me about volunteering.

It was a long survey. I took notes for about half the call, but I had to put down my pencil from time to time, because my kids were jumping and trying to climb all over me, and I was afraid one of them would grab the pencil and get hurt. After the call I jotted down notes on other questions I could remember. If you've gotten this call, please leave a comment with any questions I have forgotten.

I'm putting as much as I can remember about the poll after the jump. I figured that Boswell's campaign was paying for the survey, based on the type of questions asked, and the fact that there were more questions asked about Boswell than about Fallon.

Just to make sure, I called Ed Fallon, and he confirmed that his campaign did not commission this survey and does not have any poll in the field right now.

If you don't care to read the whole extended entry, here's the summary. The poll asks a lot of questions about how Boswell is doing and what the respondent thinks about Boswell on various issues. All of the votes Fallon has criticized are mentioned in the survey, and respondents are asked whether they agree with Boswell's or Fallon's position. At various points during the survey, respondents are asked if they would vote for Fallon or Boswell if the primary election were held today.

The poll tests both positive and negative messages about Boswell, asking if the respondent agrees or if the statement would affect their likelihood of voting for Boswell. Interestingly, the survey did not test negative messages about Fallon. I kept waiting for questions about whether it bothered me that Fallon supported Nader in 2000, or was too liberal to win a general election, or whatever, but they were not in this survey. This was not a persuasion call against Fallon.

As far as I can tell, the Boswell campaign is trying to figure out which of Fallon's criticisms have the potential to hurt the incumbent, and which can be safely ignored.  

Follow me after the jump for more details.

In case you don’t normally read the Des Moines Register, Marc Hansen’s column on Ed Fallon in Tuesday’s edition was pretty good.

My only gripe relates to this passage:

Fallon hasn’t had many so-called “real jobs.” Like optometrist or truck driver, as opposed to “field canvasser” or “inner-city community organizer.”

I like Hansen, but this is a cheap shot. Why is engaging the public on political issues any less of a “real job” than driving a truck?

I’m sick of journalists denigrating political work and citizen empowerment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: The House passed this bill 235-181, with 14 Republicans voting with the Democratic majority and 7 Democrats voting against the bill. Bush says he will veto. Will Senate Democrats cave and remove the tax and renewable electricity standard provisions (see below)?

The U.S. House is set to vote on a big energy bill today (Thursday), and it’s the best bill we’ve seen yet on this subject. After the jump I am posting a detailed statement from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office describing some of the key provisions in the bill:

http://www.speaker.gov/legisla…

Title XIV would break new ground at the federal level by establishing a “renewable electricity standard”:

Establishes a 15 percent national renewable electricity standard (RES). This market-based mechanism will require electric utilities to use renewable energy to generate 15 percent of their electricity or to purchase renewable energy credits from others to meet this standard by 2020.

That provision will be a major sticking point with Republicans in the Senate, as will this:

Upholding Fiscal Responsibility and Bipartisanship

•    This legislation does not add to the deficit and all revenue offsets resulted from bipartisan negotiations.

•    Revenue raisers include $13 billion in scaled-back provisions that repeal tax breaks that were needlessly given to Big Oil companies at a time of record profits. The bill also includes other revenue raisers from the President’s budget.

•    Specifically, the bill closes a loophole written into the international tax bill (H.R. 4520) and rolls back the 2005 Energy Bill tax break for geological and geophysical expenditures. These provisions are narrowly targeted toward the large integrated oil companies.

•    In addition, to ensure that oil and gas companies are paying their fair share of taxes, it closes a tax loophole that allows big oil and gas companies to game the system by understating their foreign oil and gas extraction income.  

•    Other revenue raisers in the bill come from the President’s budget and from bipartisan negotiations with the Senate, the largest of which strengthens reporting on the value of stock to make sure that gains are taxed.

On the e-mail loop of the Iowa Renewable Energy Association, there has been some discussion of whether these measures could survive a Senate vote. An excerpt from a piece in “Energy & Environment News” (I am not a subscriber so can’t post a link) quotes Tom Harkin as saying that some of the good provisions may be stripped from the bill so that it can be passed this year without President Bush vetoing it.

Although Chuck Grassley apparently would vote for the renewable electricity standard himself, his top priority is securing a multi-billion-dollar giveaway to the corn-based ethanol industry. If the renewable standard or tax credits for solar and wind power have to be stripped from the bill to get it through the Senate, he is likely to go along with that.

Alternatively, Harry Reid may delay consideration of the energy bill if he thinks he doesn’t have the 60 votes to break an expected Republican filibuster. That would make passage of the bill this year very unlikely.

Bottom line: the House picture is encouraging, but the Senate picture is depressing. Please consider donating to one of our fine Senate candidates in other states, so we can elect more and better Democrats to the Senate in 2008.

The full text of the statement from Pelosi’s office is after the jump. 

John Edwards frames a powerful new argument to the describe our Broken System of Government, which we put up with in Washington DC.

If you haven’t seen it yet, it well worth a listen:

Part 1:



http://youtube.com/watch?v=B6_…

Part 2:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vB4…

Part 3:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Npx…

Great Imaginary, fiery rhetoric!

But what exactly is “this Wall around Washington” that Edwards says we must tear down?

Explore with me, a few ways in which the “Rhetoric Meets Reality”, after the fold, in a simple photo-essay:

The rabble-rousers over at Open Left (Chris Bowers, Matt Stoller, and Mike Lux) have launched a campaign against “Bush dogs”, defined as Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives who have in 2007 both capitulated on the Iraq funding bill and voted to allow Alberto Gonzales warrantless wiretapping powers.

You will probably not be surprised to learn that IA-03's own Leonard Boswell makes this list. Like many in the group, he is in the “Blue Dog” faction in the House. (Other “Bush dogs” are in the “New Democrats” group in the House, but Boswell does not belong to that club.) 

Boswell's disappointing vote on these issues is only the latest in a long string of disappointments for me, from voting for all of Bush's horrible energy bills to supporting permanent repeal of the estate tax to voting for the “torture” bill in the fall of 2006.

Does Boswell really represent such a conservative district that he “has” to vote with Republicans on these issues? No, he does not. His district actually has a partisan index of D+1.4, whereas many of the Bush dogs are in districts that lean Republican, or deep-South districts where rank and file Democrats tend to be more conservative. 

Chris Bowers specifically criticized Boswell in this post, in which he made the case that Boswell is NOT “voting his district” when he casts his lot with the Bush White House.

Paul Rosenberg provides some interesting data on the “Bush dogs” and how vulnerable they might be to a strong challenge: click here for more. 

Some in the blogosphere have criticized this effort to target in possibly hit Bush dogs with primary challengers, saying it could endanger our majority in the House and is bad form to “meddle” in other states' politics. Chris Bowers responded to the criticism here, and Mike Lux weighed in on the dispute, and his desire to promote progressive voting in Congress without harming Democrats in truly vulnerable positions, here.

What do you think? I support letting Boswell know when we are upset about his voting, but I don't see a primary challenge as having much chance here. Anyway, Iowa is going to lose a district after the 2010 census, and Boswell will likely retire at that point.

Primary challenges against other “Bush dogs” may be well worth the effort, on the other hand. Even if we don't beat these people in the primary, we can push them to vote better, as Jane Harman and Ellen Tauscher (both California Democrats) have been doing since netroots progressives targeted them for primary challenges. 

The liberal blogosphere has been disappointed that the U.S. Senate (including 16 Democrats) capitulated to President Bush on warrantless wiretapping this week.

However, we had some great news out of the U.S. House on Saturday. The chamber passed an energy bill that would take away $16 billion in tax breaks for oil and put more resources toward renewable energy.

Even better, I heard from Rich Dana (former president of I-Renew) on the I-Renew e-mail list that the House approved an amendment calling for a 15 percent Renewable Electricity Standard. That would require the U.S. to have 15 percent of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2020.

The vote on the RES amendment was 220-190.

Rich has the details on that crucial vote:

Democratic
Ayes188
Noes38
NV9
Republican
Ayes32
Noes152
  NV19

TOTALS
Ayes220
Noes190
No Vote28

Iowa – Loebsack, Braley, Boswell Aye  King, Latham No

Fortunately, the Democrats in the Iowa delegation all voted yes. (I was worried about Boswell and sent an e-mail to his office on Thursday about this issue.)

But it's worth noting that 38 Democrats voted against the RES, which would not have passed without the 32 Republicans who voted for it.

We've got a Democratic majority in the House, but clearly we've still got a lot of work to do if we want a reliable progressive majority. 

The next big battle will be in the conference committee that will reconcile the House and Senate versions of the energy bill. But it looks like we've got a decent chance at keeping the RES provision in there, since it was included in the Senate version. 

PS: At Daily Kos yesterday, user apsmith posted a helpful analysis and comparison of the energy plans proposed by Edwards, Obama, Clinton and Richardson.

Click the link and read through the chart–it will be worth your time, and you'll see why Daily Kos readers who took the poll attached to this diary vastly preferred the Edwards and Richardson plans to the Obama and Clinton plans.

My only criticism is that apsmith didn't include Dodd in his analysis. Dodd's got a good energy policy as well. 

UPDATE: Lee Honeycutt posted this helpful information on the I-Renew e-mail list:

Anyone wanting to read the RES bill can find it online at:

http://thomas. loc.gov/cgi- bin/query/ z?c110:H. R.3221:

You can also download a PDF version of the 786-page bill:

http://frwebgate. access.gpo. gov/cgi-bin/ getdoc.cgi? dbname=110_ cong_bills& docid=f:h3221ih. txt.pdf

So Leonard Boswell voted for the Iraq War supplemental funding bill today, just like we all knew he would. Sad as that is, it's not why I felt compelled to write this post. Pretty much every vote Boswell has ever cast related to Iraq has been the wrong vote, in my opinion.

What prompted this post was a press release from the Center for Food Safety, which came to my attention this evening. Leonard Boswell apparently inserted language into the 2007 Farm Bill that would preempt any state prohibitions against any foods or agricultural goods that have been approved by USDA. That would include genetically modified foods. The press release does not name Boswell as the author of the language in question, but advocates have learned that he was behind the move.

How disappointing that as the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry (a subcommittee of the House Ag Committee), Boswell is using his influence to weaken consumer protection. Does he think the Farm Bureau will reward him for this? They're always going to endorse his opponent, no matter how much he delivers for big agribusiness in the Farm Bill.

As a resident of Iowa's 3rd district, I have long felt that we could do a lot better than Leonard Boswell. He is often not with us on environmental policy, energy policy, tax policy, or foreign policy. Even so, this move disappoints me.

If you live in the 3rd district, please contact Congressman Boswell and tell him that federal law should not prevent states from prohibiting certain types of food or agricultural goods.

You can send an e-mail directly to his office by clicking here.

Here is mail, phone and fax contact information:

DC Address:
The Honorable Leonard L. Boswell
United States House of Representatives
1427 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-1503
DC Phone: 202-225-3806
DC Fax: 202-225-5608
Email Address: http://boswell.house…
WWW Homepage: http://boswell.house…

District Office:
300 East Locust, Suite 320
Des Moines, IA 50309
Voice: 888-432-1984
FAX: 515-282-1785

The full text of the press release follows:

  *CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY OPPOSES PROPOSAL IN FARM BILL TO BAR STATE
  PROHIBITIONS ON GENE-ALTERED FOODS*

    /House Subcommittee Today Approves Language Slipped into/
    /Farm Bill that Prevents States from Protecting their Citizens/

*Center for Food Safety Recognizes that Proposal Ties States’ Hands,
Weakening*

*Food Safety Protections at a Time When they Need to be Strengthened*

*Washington** May 24, 2007* – Earlier today, the House Subcommittee
on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry approved new language slipped into the 2007 Farm Bill that pre-empts any state prohibitions against any foods or agricultural goods that have been deregulated by the USDA. The passage appears to be aimed at several recently enacted state laws that restrict the planting of genetically engineered (GE) crops, but could also prohibit states from taking action when food contamination cases occur.

“Given the recent spate of food scares, it’s shocking to see this attempt to derail safeguards for our food and farms,” said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director of the Center for Food Safety. “We need a Farm Bill that will promote stronger food safety standards, not one that attacks these vital state-level protections.”

The passage approved by the House Subcommittee today states that “no State or locality shall make any law prohibiting the use in commerce of an article that the Secretary of Agriculture has inspected and passed; or determined to be of non-regulated status.”

State legislatures, local governments, and citizens of many states and localities have adopted prohibitions on the planting of certain genetically altered products. Some of the state-level laws that may be pre-empted or compromised if the proposed Farm Bill language were adopted include:

· *Legislation in California and Arkansas that gives these states the power to prohibit the introduction of GE rice.* The major rice growing states are particularly concerned after last fall’s revelations that several unapproved varieties of GE rice had contaminated natural rice, resulting in massive losses for US farmers when export customers in Asian and Europe closed their markets to US rice.

· *Legislation adopted this year in the state of Washington, which prohibits planting of GE canola in areas near the State’s large non-GE seed production*. Brassica (cabbage, broccoli, and other such crops) seed producers pushed for this legislation, since GE canola can cross-pollinate with and contaminate natural cabbage seed. The Skagit Valley area in Washington produces $20 million in vegetable seed annually and is home to half of the world’s cabbage seed production;

· *County bans on planting of GE crops in four California counties.* To protect their organic and natural food producers, four California counties have adopted bans or moratoriums on planting of GE crops;

An overview of these and other state- level regulations of GE crops and foods is available at:
http://www.centerfor… .

In addition, the vague language of the proposal raises concerns that states would be barred from taking action when food safety threats arise. For example, states could be barred from prohibiting the sale of e. coli-tainted ground beef if the meat has passed USDA inspection, as was the case in last week’s massive 15-state beef recall.

The biotechnology industry has sponsored language akin to the text approved this morning in the House subcommittee in dozens of state-level attempts to pre-empt state regulations on GE crops. They also joined the food and agribusiness industries last year in pushing for a federal “Food Uniformity” law, which would have gutted numerous state-level food safety laws.

* *

*/The Center for Food Safety/*/ is national, non-profit, membership
organization founded in 1997 that works to protect human health and the
environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies
and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. On
the web at: http://www.centerfor…

Ed. Note: Cross-posted Political Forecast.

In a day of big news on the 2008 trail (new Dodd ad, memo about Clinton campaign pondering skipping Iowa, Edwards giving a big foreign policy speech, etc), here is something worth recognizing as a standout point: Sen. Christopher Dodd is going to vote against the new Iraq supplemental funding bill, the one without a timeline for withdrawal. The video of his reasoning is below:

And here is the full release from the campaign is below:

“This war has gone on longer than World War II and there is no end in sight. Yet we are less secure and more isolated than before. We have lost 3,400 patriotic Americans and shattered our standing in the world. We are spending $2 billion a week – $8 billion a month – and are now caught in the middle of a civil war. Still, this President wants more of the same and this bill would give him his wish.

I cannot and will not simply give this President another blank check.

Half-measures and equivocations are not going to change our course in Iraq. If we are serious about ending the war, Congress must stand up to this President’s failed policy now – with clarity and conviction.

As the debate on the war continues, I will continue to fight for a firm deadline that is tied to funding which will allow for a responsible redeployment of U.S. combat troops in Iraq – because that’s the only way to responsibly bring this war to a conclusion.

I hope my colleagues would do the same.”

This comes after a new ad was released this morning by his campaign, where he called out Senators Clinton and Obama — the presumed front-runners — for finally coming to his position and voting in favor of the Feingold-Reid-Dodd Amendment in the Senate. It was a big time move, and I think a good way to gain traction here in Iowa.

Both Clinton and Obama are strong in Iowa, behind the powerhouse that is John Edwards. Right behind those three is Bill Richardson, who has gained traction with his message calling on Congress to de-authorize the war in Iraq and his new ads. In the latest Iowa Poll, Dodd wasn’t gaining traction. With the ads and the strong movement against the war in Iraq and the calls for troop withdrawals by March of 2008, Dodd is putting himself firmly in the anti-Iraq war camp with Richardson and Edwards. While Obama has consistently been against the war, he can’t put himself in this camp because he’s not coming out strong for withdrawal, deauthorization, or any other kind of leadership position on the issue. Clinton is Clinton on Iraq (I’m glad she’s calling on the Pentagon to do more to prepare for withdrawal scenarios, but toeing the line just doesn’t mesh with me).

Sen. Dodd is a strong voice to end this war, particularly in the Senate. Sens. Clinton and Obama have started following his lead, but beyond Sen. Russ Feingold, he’s the only other one pushing strongly in the Senate for an end to this debacle. And he deserves credit for bring that debate into the Senate, as well as bringing it to the race by forcing Clinton and Obama to clearly take a stand. And now, as the closing part of the release shows, he’s making an issue of how Clinton and Obama are going to vote on the supplemental. And they should vote against it. Make this a Republican bill — make them own it. They’re the ones continuing this mess.

I’m staying neutral for a while, but if a candidate wants to keep convincing me they’re worthy of being the next President, then they need to start leading the charge to put an end to the Iraq war. It is that simple.

Cross posted from my own blog.  I promise that this won’t be the rule, but I already wrote this yesterday while waiting for the BH confirmation e-mail.

I’ve been dying to blog about this site since I saw the beta call back in November.  Opencongress.org aims to add much-needed transparency and usable search tools to open the often closed, and intentionally obscure workings of the United States Congress.

While Democrats picked up two new seats to claim a majority of Iowa’s Congressional delegation, the overall congressional vote was tilted in the Republican’s favor – they won 520,798 votes (50.6%) to our 490,476 (47.7%).  This margin represents less than the margin in just Congressional District 5, but that margin is slated to move on over into at least one of our competitive districts in six years.

A similar result can be seen in Indiana, where Democrats lost the statewide congressional vote while picking up three seats to bring them to a majority.  The only other state with as dramatic results as Iowa and Indiana is New Hampshire, but considering they won their only two Congressional seats, they obviously managed an overall majority as well.  It might just be the fact that Democrats were doing so poorly before the election that the races they weren’t able to compete in – CD 4 and 5 here and 4, 5, and 6 in Indiana – overwhelmed the results of what were targeted, competitive races on both sides.  We’ll get a better idea in 2008, when Republicans are the ones trying to pick off our seats.