Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that overall turnout in Iowa in 2008 was lower than it was in 2004. That is surprising, given the well-documented surge in new voter registrations.

Which people who participated in 2004 stayed home yesterday, and how did that affect the results?

Tom Harkin won all 99 counties, which is remarkable considering that John McCain beat Barack Obama in 46 or 47 of Iowa’s counties. Even in Republican areas, they’re looking for more in a U.S. senator than trash talk and smackdowns. Does anyone remember whether Chuck Grassley carried all 99 counties in 2004?

(UPDATE: The Daily Kos election scoreboard shows Christopher Reed beating Harkin in Page County in the southwest part of the state and in the four counties in the northwest corner. There may be a mistake on the Des Moines Register’s map, which shows all 99 counties in blue for the Senate race.)

The words “idiot” and “insane person” will be removed from the Iowa Constitution.

Speaking of idiots, Steve King got away with barely campaigning in the fifth district, winning by at least 20 points. Politics can be cruel, and I feel for Rob Hubler, who worked so hard for so long to give fifth district residents a credible candidate.

Nationwide, many Democratic challengers in districts like IA-05 fell far short. Nancy Boyda, a surprise winner from 2006 in KS-02, was a surprise loser last night. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee invested millions of dollars in other similarly Republican districts like MN-06 and AZ-03, and our challengers lost those too.

After beating Kim Schmett by 57 percent to 42 percent (about double his margin of victory in 2006), third district Congressman Leonard Boswell immediately vowed to run for re-election in 2010. Can’t some Democratic heavy-hitters who are on good terms with Boswell encourage him to retire? Barring that, is there anyone willing to start fundraising for a 2010 primary challenge who would have some establishment support?

We may have to run against Tom Latham in a redrawn third district in 2012, and it would be helpful to have a new Democratic incumbent in place before that happens.

Bruce Braley was the incumbent re-elected by the largest margin, 64 percent to 36 percent. I agree with John Deeth that Republican moderates are going to challenge Dave Hartsuch in his 2010 state senate primary.

Dave Loebsack won big in the second district, by 57 percent to 39 percent. The hill in this D+7 district is just too steep for a Republican candidate to climb. Mariannette Miller-Meeks would be better off seeking a different political office in the future, although the Iowa GOP may encourage her to run for Congress again in 2010. Loebsack won’t have the Barack Obama turnout machine cranking in Johnson and Linn counties two years from now.

Iowa Democrats are looking at small net gains in the House and Senate. Dawn Pettengill got away with switching to the GOP after the Iowa Democratic Party worked hard to elect her. A couple of races may have a different result once the absentee and provisional ballots are counted. Deeth has more details.

Jerry Sullivan has not ruled out requesting a recount in House district 59, although it seems unlikely to me that there are enough provisional and absentee ballots outstanding for him to reverse Chris Hagenow’s 141-vote lead (out of more than 16,000 votes cast).

UPDATE: Johnson County voters narrowly approved a controversial bond measure. The proposal was designed to generate

$20 million in a 20-year period to conserve open space.

By collecting taxes for two decades, the Johnson County Conservation Board will have the funds to buy and preserve remnant areas of land scattered throughout the county from willing sellers.

Bumped. Don’t forget to enter by Tuesday morning at 6 am!

I am still trying to decide whether to go with my optimistic or pessimistic scenario and will post my final prediction on Monday night.

There are no tangible prizes here–only bragging rights for the winners.

Enter if you dare. Try to come up with guesses for all the questions. Before you complain that these questions are tough, look at the Swing State Project prediction contest.

Your vote percentage guesses do not have to add up to 100 percent if you believe that minor-party candidates or write-ins will pick up a few percent of the vote.

1. What percentage of the national popular vote with Barack Obama and John McCain receive?

2. How many electoral votes will Obama and McCain win? (538 total)

3. What percentage of the vote will Obama and McCain win in Iowa?

4. What percentage of the vote will Bruce Braley and Dave Hartsuch receive in the 1st district?

5. What percentage of the vote will Dave Loebsack and Mariannette Miller-Meeks receive in the 2nd district?

6. What percentage of the vote will Leonard Boswell and Kim Schmett receive in the 3rd district?

7. What percentage of the vote will Tom Latham and Becky Greenwald receive in the 4th district?

8. What percentage of the vote will Steve King and Rob Hubler receive in the 5th district?

9. How many seats will the Democrats and Republicans have in the Iowa House after the election (currently 53-47 Dem)?

10. How many seats will the Democrats and Republicans have in the Iowa Senate after the election (currently 30-20 Dem)?

11. Which Congressional race in Iowa will be the closest (in terms of percentage of vote difference between winner and loser)?

12. Which Iowa House or Senate race will be the closest (in terms of percentage of vote difference between winner and loser)?

13. Nationally, which U.S. Senate race will be decided by the narrowest margin (in terms of percentage of the vote difference, not raw votes)?

14. In the presidential race, which state will be decided by the narrowest margin (again, in terms of percentage of the vote)?

The deadline for entering this contest is 6 am on November 4.

Please don’t e-mail me your predictions. Post a comment if you want to enter the contest. If you’re a lurker, this is an ideal time to register for a Bleeding Heartland account so that you can post comments.

UPDATE: Here are my predictions. I went with my optimistic scenario nationally but my more pessimistic scenario for Iowa, having been emotionally scarred by too many disappointing election nights.

1. National popular vote, rounded to the nearest point: Obama 54 percent, McCain 45 percent

2. Electoral college: Obama 353, McCain 185 (Obama wins all Kerry states plus IA, NM, CO, NV, OH, FL, VA and NC)

3. In Iowa, Obama will win 56 percent, McCain 43 percent

4. Braley 62, Hartsuch 38

5. Loebsack 57, Miller-Meeks 40 (I have no doubt that she will overperform McCain in this D+7 district, but it won’t be enough. She should run for the statehouse someday.)

6. Boswell 55, Schmett 45

7. Heartbreaker in the fourth: Latham 51, Greenwald 49. I expect too many independents to split their tickets. That said, I wouldn’t be shocked to see Greenwald win this race on Obama’s coat-tails. I just don’t see that as the most likely outcome.

8. Again, I wouldn’t rule out a surprise victory for Hubler if a lot of Republicans stay home tomorrow, but my prediction is (sadly) going to be King 54, Hubler 46.

9. The Iowa House will have 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans.

10. The Iowa Senate will have 33 Democrats and 17 Republicans.

11. IA-04 will be the closest Congressional race.

12. My gut feeling is that as in 2004, an Iowa House or Senate district not being targeted by either party will turn out to be closer than any of the targeted races. However, I have no idea how to select that kind of district, so I’m going to guess that the House district 81 race between Phyllis Thede and Jamie Van Fossen will be the closest.

13. The closest U.S. Senate race will be in Georgia.

14. North Carolina will be the state decided by the smallest margin in the presidential race (this was tough for me, because I also think Georgia and Missouri will be very close).

SECOND UPDATE: I forgot to predict that Obama will carry 61 of Iowa’s 99 counties.

Also, do great minds think alike? I find very little to disagree with in John Deeth’s prediction post. Meanwhile, Chris Bowers’ final election forecasts for the electoral vote and U.S. Senate are identical to mine. I predicted a slightly bigger net gain for Democrats in the U.S. House than Bowers did, though.

Ed Fallon, who challenged Congressman Leonard Boswell in the Democratic primary to represent Iowa’s third district, e-mailed the following to his supporters today:

Dear Friends,

When I first announced I would run for Congress last January, I promised to support Congressman Boswell should he win the primary.  He did.  Yet many people have told me they plan to write-in my name.  As promised, I plan to vote for Boswell when I go to the polls on Election Day.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board also recommends supporting Boswell.  To read their endorsement, click on the following link.

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

Thanks for everything you’ve done in this election, from the caucuses through the primary through the general.  Lynn and I will be doing our part on November 4th to help assure a great turnout, a victory for Obama, and the success of other progressive Democrats.

Ed Fallon

I will also vote a straight Democratic ticket, without leaving any ballot line blank or writing in any candidate’s name for any office.

I agree with the Register’s editorial board, however, that “Iowans deserve better” than the level of representation Boswell has been providing, and that Boswell should announce soon that he does not plan to run for re-election in 2010.  

Chris Bowers of Open Left has officially launched the Use It or Lose It campaign to get safe Democratic incumbents to pay their dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He developed a spreadsheet showing dues owed by 54 House Democrats, along with contact information for their campaigns.

Iowa’s own Dave Loebsack is on the list. Apparently, he owes $125,000. Contact information for his campaign:

319-351-3283 (phone)

info@loebsackforcongress.org  (e-mail)

Bowers gives good advice here:

We will ask for the members of Congress to pay all, or at least some, of their remaining dues in order to build a larger Democratic majority. We will be polite, and we will call their campaign offices, as it is inappropriate to ask for campaign money when calling a congressional office.

Leonard Boswell is not on Bowers’ spreadsheet, and I’m trying to find out whether that’s because he has paid his DCCC dues. Bowers removed names of members who’ve paid, but also took off those designated by the DCCC as “frontline Democrats.” Boswell was put in that category during the third district primary campaign, but he obviously is not facing a serious challenge during the general election. If he hasn’t given to the DCCC, he should be added to the Use It or Lose It effort.

If all 54 Democrats on the spreadsheet pay their dues, the DCCC would have an additional $6.5 million to spend in the final week. That would support a lot of ad buys in a lot of districts where we have good challengers.

If you live in the second district, please call Loebsack’s campaign and politely ask him to give to the DCCC. Then post a comment reporting what you’ve been told, or send me a confidential e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

Congressional candidates’ third-quarter campaign finance reports were due today (October 15), so I went over to the Federal Election Commission site to see how things stand.

For some reason, I was unable to find reports for Senator Tom Harkin or his opponent, Christopher Reed. I will cover their FEC filings in a separate post when data become available. UPDATE: The National Journal’s Hotline blog published the basic information from all Senate candidates’ FEC filings.

Tom Harkin had total receipts of $635,915 during 3Q, spent $495,136, and had $3,956,998 cash on hand as of September 30.

Christopher Reed had total receipts of $34,956 during 3Q, spent $13,156, and had $22,092 cash on hand left.

All of the incumbents have large cash-on-hand advantages over their opponents going into the final stretch of the campaign.

Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) has given generously to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: $25,000 in July and another $50,000 at the end of August.

I could not find any donations from Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) to the DCCC. I hope someone from his staff will correct me if I am wrong. He certainly can afford to donate to the DCCC, running in a D+7 district in what looks like a very strong year for Iowa Democrats. On the other hand, the DCCC did nothing to help him two years ago when he was running against Jim Leach, so maybe he is less inclined to support the committee’s efforts.

I also could not find any record of donations from Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03) to the DCCC. Again, I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong. But if this is correct, it’s a disgrace for Boswell. The DCCC has spent heavily on Boswell’s behalf in several previous election cycles. The least he could do would be to help them support other Democratic candidates.

Iowa’s two Democratic challengers had very strong fundraising quarters. Becky Greenwald out-raised Tom Latham during the reporting period, which is phenomenal. However, she spent more than she raised, leaving her with relatively little cash on hand. The DCCC has added her to its Red to Blue list, so she presumably will be getting some help from them as well as from EMILY’s list, which endorsed her last month. She will need that help in order to stay on tv for the remainder of the campaign.

Considering that the fifth district is not widely acknowledged to be up for grabs, Rob Hubler’s haul for the quarter is impressive. No wonder the DCCC put him on the Emerging Races list. He went up on the radio last week and presumably will be able to stay on the radio for the duration of the campaign. It’s not clear whether he will have enough money for tv ads before election day. Steve King just went up on tv today and only went up on the radio a day or two earlier. I’m surprised King waited so long. Latham has been advertising heavily on television for the past few weeks and put up his first radio ad during the summer.

Here is the basic information from the candidates’ FEC filings. Click the links to access the full reports.

IA-01

Bruce Braley: $184,854.12 raised during 3Q, $107,099.90 spent, $402,586.60 cash on hand

Dave Hartsuch: $25,163.00 raised during 3Q, $30,447.28 spent, $7,391.01 cash on hand

IA-02

Dave Loebsack: $110,442.10 raised during 3Q, $116,561.03 spent, $456,656.96 cash on hand

Mariannette Miller-Meeks has not yet filed her report; I will update with that when available. Her report for the second quarter is here. UPDATE: She reported $108,599.26 raised during 3Q, $61,944.50 spent, $83,274.27 cash on hand

IA-03

Leonard Boswell: $133,045.34 raised during 3Q, $198,211.79 spent, $325,757.93 cash on hand

Kim Schmett: $56,294.35 raised during 3Q, $61,306.22 spent, $23,537.30 cash on hand

Note: According to his 3Q filing, Ed Fallon has paid off most of his debt from the third district primary against Boswell.

IA-04

Becky Greenwald: $308,452.01 raised during 3Q, $354,422.07 spent, $24,476.99 cash on hand

Tom Latham: $290,815.32 raised during 3Q, $269,858.03 spent, $774,671.45 cash on hand

IA-05

Rob Hubler: $95,235.42 raised during 3Q, $56,168.81 spent, $64,654.06 cash on hand

Steve King: $191,689.27 raised during 3Q, $91,993.28 spent, $351,239.55 cash on hand

Not.

Hey, everyone! Our tax dollars paid for National Security Agency employees to listen to phone sex and other private conversations between U.S. military personnel in the Middle East and their families.

Plus, the NSA continued to eavesdrop on American citizens they knew to be working for the Red Cross and other aid organizations.

NSA employees also routinely listened to American journalists working in Baghdad’s Green Zone as they called their homes and offices in the U.S.

Key comment from one of the whistleblowers:

Kinne says the success stories underscored for her the waste of time spent listening to innocent Americans, instead of looking for the terrorist needle in the haystack.

“By casting the net so wide and continuing to collect on Americans and aid organizations, it’s almost like they’re making the haystack bigger and it’s harder to find that piece of information that might actually be useful to somebody,” she said. “You’re actually hurting our ability to effectively protect our national security.”

By the way, you know who never met a Bush administration wiretapping program he didn’t like? My own Congressman Leonard Boswell, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee. In case you forgot, he was one of 41 House Democrats who voted with most House Republicans to expand the executive branch’s eavesdropping power, as outlined by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Maybe these whistleblowers can come explain to Congress that massively expanding government surveillance doesn’t just undermine civil liberties, it also makes it “harder to find that piece of information that might actually be useful to somebody.”

I haven’t written much about Leonard Boswell since the Democratic primary for the third Congressional district, because there hasn’t been much to say. He hasn’t been campaigning much, nor has he needed to. IA-03 is not a competitive House district according to any of the people who follow Congressional races closely (for instance, Swing State Project, the Cook Report and Open Left).

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) spent money to defend Boswell in 2004 and 2006 but hasn’t seen the need for that this year.

So I was more than a little annoyed to receive a fundraising solicitation from Dody Boswell this week:

Dear Friends,

First, thank you all for your support with Leonard’s campaign.  I know we’ve all been working hard for the last few months and now we only have 50 days to go!  It’s great to know so many of you have already gone online to donate.

It is truly with urgency, that I need to ask you again to help out my husband.  The election is closing in and we need to raise enough money to buy some media for the last few weeks of the campaign.  We also have the reporting deadline in two weeks on September 30 and need to show the press that we have the funds to compete.

Our goal is within reach and I know if everyone donated at least forty-two more dollars we will make that goal!!!  You can donate at www.boswellforcongress.com or click on the link below.

PLEASE CONTRIBUTE $42.00 BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER 30 DEADLINE!!!

I can personally tell you how hard Leonard works for us.  And that he appreciates everything that you do to allow him to continue his efforts on our behalf in Washington.

I thank you so very much,

Dody

PS – Your small contribution of $42 really will make all the difference!

Boswell for Congress

P.O. Box 6220

Des Moines, IA 50309

Excuse me, Boswell needs “to show the press that we have the funds to compete”?

As of June 30, Boswell had $393,852 on hand, while little-known Republican challenger Kim Schmett had $28,768. Boswell has held several fundraisers since then.

He should not be asking constituents for more money. He should be handing over a large chunk of his campaign account to the DCCC so they can use it to play for more Republican-held seats and to defend truly vulnerable incumbents (the way the DCCC helped Boswell in past years).

You can reach Boswell’s Congressional office at (202)225-3806.

You can reach his campaign headquarters at (515)883-2254 or Campaign@BoswellForCongress.com.

Tell his staff that you want him to give at least 10 percent of his campaign’s cash on hand to the DCCC.

For more on this year’s Use It or Lose It campaign, read this post by Lucas O’Connor. If every safe House incumbent handed over 10 percent of his or her campaign account, the DCCC would have an additional $8.3 million to use in competitive races.

On a different subject, I called Boswell’s Congressional office yesterday and was told he did not have any statement yet on the bailout proposal. What do you want to bet he was among the Blue Dogs who urged Nancy Pelosi today to move toward the position of the Bush administration and corporate lobbyists?

I’ll fill in that oval next to Boswell’s name on the ballot, but he won’t get a dime from me.

I’m giving as much as I can afford to Rob Hubler and Becky Greenwald.

AT&T threw an invitation-only party on Monday night for the “Blue Dogs” in the House of Representatives. Matt Stoller found a blurb in the newspaper about this party:

Just because the Blue Dogs are fiscally conservative doesn’t mean they can’t have a good time, especially when AT&T is picking up the bill.

Why would AT&T want to throw an expensive party for the Blue Dogs? Maybe it’s because most of those Blue Dogs (including my own Congressman Leonard Boswell) voted with the House Republicans to pass a version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act containing retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that spied on Americans.

A group of well-known bloggers showed up outside the exclusive Denver restaurant to see who turned up. Glenn Greenwald of Salon, who wrote a book’s worth of material this year on FISA, tried to interview the people going into this party. Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake was there:

It was remarkable. I’ve never seen anything like it, really.  Glenn would announce that he was from Salon.com, ask them if they would be interviewed about the party, and nobody wanted to say who they were or even acknowledge that they knew what the party was about.

Almost every single person we talked with had the good sense to be ashamed of being there, but that didn’t stop them from going in.

I haven’t been able to confirm whether Boswell attended this party. Think Progress quotes the San Francisco Examiner, which reported that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was there:

Hoyer spokeswoman Stacey Bernards said Hoyer was not aware of any connection between the party and his work on the legislation.

“I’m sure Mr. Hoyer didn’t even know who the sponsor was,” she said.

Right. He had no idea who sponsored the party, even though numerous reports named AT&T as the sponsor. I’m sure Hoyer goes to parties all the time without asking who invited him.

From the San Francisco Examiner report:

AT&T is just one example of how political conventions have become a virtual bazaar where corporations and other special interests can peddle their wares, showcase their products and make a case for their favorite (or least favorite) piece of pending legislation.

The Texas-based company has the most high-profile corporate presence in Denver. It is a major sponsor at the convention, it is holding daily lunches for state delegations at the Pinnacle Club, with its startling views of the Rocky Mountain range, and co-hosting hip parties for the likes of the Screen Actors’ Guild and the New Democratic Coalition.

I seem to remember someone talking about the system being rigged because corporations have too much power in Washington, and how it wouldn’t be enough to replace corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats.

Oh yeah, it was that guy whose personal screw-up cost him a speaking slot at the convention. With him out of the picture, AT&T and the Blue Dogs can rest easy, because no prime-time speaker is going to be spreading that message in Denver.

Nor, I fear, are we likely to hear it from Democratic leaders in 2009.

This yellow-dog Democrat is not looking forward to checking the box next to Blue Dog Boswell’s name in November.

My best advice to those who are still angry about the FISA capitulation is don’t buy an iPhone. Getting one locks you into AT&T phone service.  

As always, post a comment if you know of any important event I have left out.

Democratic candidates, send me your public schedules (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) so I can include your events on my calendar.

The Iowa State Fair runs through Sunday. Admission is half-price on the last day. We were there yesterday, and my kids really liked the dog frisbee-catching and stunt show, the Animal Learning Center (where you can see animals with very young babies), the “Little Hands on the Farm” demonstration/play area, and the butterfly exhibit, which I think is new to the fair.

Thursday, August 14:

From the Obama campaign:

Dana Singiser, the campaign’s Senior Adviser for the Women’s Vote, will campaign for Senator Obama in Iowa on Thursday, August 14th and Friday, August 15th, 2008.  On Thursday, Singiser will hold a Women’s Coffee in Sioux City and a Women for Obama event in Council Bluffs.  On Friday, she will hold a Women’s Coffee in Clive and a Women’s Lunch in Boone.  Singiser will discuss Senator Obama’s plan to provide economic security for America’s working women.  

Singiser serves as Senior Adviser to the Obama for America where she advises Senator Obama on the national political landscape for women and leads the campaign’s efforts to reach women voters across the country. Most recently, she served as Director of Women’s Outreach for the Hillary Clinton 2008 campaign.

The details of the events are:

THURSDAY, AUGUST 14TH, 2008

1:00 PM CDT

Women’s Coffee with Dana Singiser

Sioux City Art Center

255 Nebraska St

Sioux City, Iowa

7:00 PM CDT

Women for Obama event with Dana Singiser

Council Bluffs Library

400 Willow Ave

Council Bluffs, Iowa

Also, the Obama campaign will continue its series of “rural roundtable discussions” across Iowa to highlight Senator Obama’s plan to strengthen rural communities and support rural economic development:

THURSDAY, AUGUST 14TH, 2008

Atlantic

6:15 PM CDT

Obama Iowa Campaign for Change Rural Roundtable Discussion with Senator Ben Nelson

Farmer’s Kitchen

319 Walnut Street

Atlantic, Iowa

At 3:30 pm, Senator Nelson will speak on Senator Obama’s behalf at the Des Moines Register’s Soap Box at the Iowa State Fair.

Becky Greenwald, candidate for Congress, will appear at the Wing Ding event at the Surf Ballroom, 460 North Shore Drive in Clear Lake. The Wing Ding starts at 5:00 pm and is a Democratic fundraiser for three northern Iowa counties, Cerro Gordo, Winnebago and Hancock. If you hear Becky’s speech, please post a diary here afterwards to let us know how the event went.

Congressman Leonard Boswell, who represents Iowa’s third district, will be speaking at the Des Moines Register’s Soap Box (outside the Register’s Service Center on the Grand Concourse) at 1:30 pm. As part of this new Iowa State Fair tradition, the Congressman will be speaking on the challenges facing our country in these uncertain times and about his work to put us back on the road to peace and prosperity.

Friday, August 15:

The Obama campaign’s Senior Adviser for the Women’s Vote is holding two more events in Iowa:

10:00 AM CDT

Women’s Coffee with Dana Singiser

Home of Sue Simons

1433 NW 105th St.

Clive, Iowa

12:30 PM CDT

Women’s Lunch with Dana Singiser

Home of Becky Lyon

1416 SE Linn St.

Boone, Iowa

Also, Senator Tom Harkin is holding an Obama campaign “rural roundtable” event at 4:00 pm in Carroll at Depot Plaza, 407 W 5th St.

Dr. Steven and Jill Kraus will be hosting a reception at their home for Tom Harkin in Carroll on Friday at 5:30 PM.  Hors d’oeuvres and refreshments will be provided and valet parking is available.  For the full details on this event, please click here.

Also on Friday, Congressman Steve King is holding two town-hall meetings. Bring along your camera to capitalize on any “macaca moments”:

9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.

King to host Sioux Center Town Hall Meeting

American State Bank – enter through West entrance (town hall meeting is downstairs)

525 North Main Avenue

Sioux Center, Iowa

4:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

King to host Sioux City Town Hall Meeting

Main Library 529 Pierce St. – Gleeson Room

Sioux City, Iowa

Saturday, August 16:

Rob Hubler will be at AtlanticFest. Contact his campaign HQ at (712) 352-2077 for more details.

Senator Harkin and Mayor Jerry Sullivan, candidate for Statehouse (HD-59), will attend a fundraiser for Sullivan’s campaign from 3:00 to 4:30 pm at the Great Midwestern Café, 1250 NW 128th St in Clive. Catering provided by Great Midwestern Café. Suggested donation $50 (host levels higher). Checks can be made payable to Sullivan for State Representative, 7018 Franklin Ave, Windsor Heights, IA  50322. RSVP to Mike at mmccall@iowademocrats.org or call (614) 561-9117.

1000 Friends of Iowa is holding its 10th anniversary celebration and annual meeting at the Griffieon family farm near Ankeny. The event starts at 9:00 am and runs all day. Click here to register for the meeting or find more details about the event, including a schedule and directions to the farm. Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey will be the keynote speaker. Registration costs $30, and that includes an “Iowa grown lunch.” Other events of the day include:

Presentation – Connie Mutel author of The Emerald Horizon: The History of  Nature in Iowa  Mutel will describe her new book, which offers an opportunity to understand,  reconnect with, and nurture Iowa’s precious natural world. She’ll also discuss  the functions (such as flood-resistance) provided by healthy native communities,  and offer a challenge to restore these functions through reintegrating nature into  Iowa’s working landscape.      1:30     Presentation – Erv Klaas  Dr. Klaas will discuss how reserving valuable cropland for growing corn and  soybeans creates difficult challenges to livestock owners who use riparian zones  for pasture. He will use the Griffieon pasture to illustrate problems livestock  owners face, the technique LaVon is using to remedy the problem and how  improvements to water quality and to our streams depends on a total watershed  approach.       2:00     Tour de Sprawl – Guides: LaVon Griffieon & Stephanie Weisenbach  In the past decade development has encroached upon the farmland next to the  Griffieon’s farm.  We will tour the neighborhood by bus to see the changes made  upon some of the world’s most prime soils.

I am involved with 1000 Friends of Iowa and will attend this meeting, but not in my capacity as desmoinesdem, so don’t expect any talk about partisan politics!

Sunday, August 17:

The Hubler campaign is organizing canvassing all over the fifth district:

Sunday marks our first large door-to-door operation and we need your help to talk to friends and neighbors about Rob’s vision for the future.  Nothing is more effective than having a neighbor drop-by their door with a piece of literature about Rob.  King will be pushing the same tired messages- but with your help we can show Iowa that there is a clear choice in this election and that Rob Hubler is the candidate who will best represent us in Washington; but we can’t win without your help!

Please contact Beth at our Council Bluffs office (712) 352-2077 or email her at beth@hublercongress.com to meet up with supporters near you. Don’t forget to bring two friends to join you!

We will be having canvass parties in the following towns:

Council Bluffs                                   Creston              

Clarinda                                           Sioux City

Spencer                                           Spirit Lake

Onawa                                             Storm Lake

Le Mars                                           Lamoni

Carroll

If you don’t see your town listed, we will be coming your way soon; contact us to help set up a joint canvass in your area.

The House of Representatives approved the so-called “compromise” on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that in fact gave the Republicans and the White House everything they wanted.

One of Iowa’s three Democratic representatives voted with the Republicans. Can you guess which one without peeking here at the roll call vote?

That’s right, Leonard Boswell voted with the Republicans.

Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack stuck with the majority of the House Democratic caucus and voted against this bill.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama came out against the immunity provision in the FISA bill today. His full statement on the bill is here, but the most important part seems to be this comment about the telecom immunity provision:

I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

Some people who follow this issue closely feel Obama’s statement didn’t go far enough. In particular, it is not clear whether “work in the Senate to remove this provision” would include supporting a filibuster of the bill.

In the good news column, Rob Hubler, Democratic candidate in the fifth district, sent the blogger Glenn Greenwald a strong statement opposing retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Here is a copy of that statement, which the Hubler campaign sent to me:

Dear Mr. Greenwald,

As  the Democratic nominee for Congress in Iowa’s Fifth Congressional District, I want you to know that I appreciate very much the initiative you  have taken to oppose and expose the FISA Amendments Act of  2008. This bill effectively guarantees retroactive immunity  for telecom companies that participated in the President’s illegal wiretap  program, and fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home.

If elected, I would vigorously oppose this measure, which would essentially  require the court to grant immunity, and authorize surveillance on citizens without adequate checks and balances to protect their  rights.

I  believe that the constitutional rights of everyday Americans are at issue  here, and full accountability is needed.  No President  should ever have unchecked power.

As  a member of Congress, I will support legislation that preserves appropriate  court review of all surveillance of U. S. citizens, and I will not vote for immunity for telecom companies.

Americans  in the U. S. with no connection to suspected terrorists should never have  their privacy abridged by an overzealous, unchecked executive  branch.

Sincerely,

Rob  L. Hubler

Ed Fallon sent an e-mail to supporters today asking for donations to help retire approximately $35,000 in debt from his campaign (the first campaign he has ended in debt).

He hired a large field staff and was apparently counting on more help from national groups than he ultimately received. With the notable exception of Democracy for America, which raised tens of thousands of dollars for Fallon’s campaign, most progressive groups stayed on the sidelines during the primary in Iowa’s third district.

That includes some groups that spent lots of money on behalf of Donna Edwards in her successful primary challenge in Maryland’s fourth Congressional district.

Relatively few nationally-prominent bloggers helped Fallon raise money. In contrast, the Daily Kos community and the Blue America group of bloggers each raised tens of thousands of dollars for Donna Edwards.

The full text of the e-mail from Fallon is after the jump. If you want to donate to his campaign, you can still donate through the website at:

http://www.fallonforcongress.com

Alternatively, you can mail a check to Fallon for Congress, 752 16th Street, Des Moines, IA 50314.  

The House of Representatives may vote very soon on a bad compromise that would in effect grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies in the new version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

If you live in Iowa’s third district, please call Congressman Leonard Boswell TODAY at 202-225-3806 to tell him to stand up for civil liberties and oppose the Senate version of the FISA bill.

His staff will notice if they get a lot of calls on this issue.

Background: Boswell was one of the “Blue Dogs” who supported the Republican position on this bill in February.

He changed his position a month later and stood with the majority of House Democrats.

The New York Times blog has more on the FISA compromise here.

I received a fundraising letter from Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign recently. It contained a healthy dose of the misleading spin I have come to expect from Boswell’s mailings this year.

I’m not going to retype the whole text, but this passage made me laugh (emphasis is in the original):

My republican opponent has had four months to raise money and plan for the general election; an election that I am only able to focus my attention on now. While I was competing against an opponent for the Democratic nomination, the republicans were getting ready to once again challenge us in this competitive district. This time they have the advantage of a large head start.

Get real. Iowa’s third Congressional district is not on the National Republican Congressional Committee’s list of 2008 targets.

CQ Politics has rated IA-03 “safe Democrat”, in part because the Republicans are not targeting the seat.

The latest Cook Political Report of competitive U.S. House races makes no mention of IA-03, which means that seat is considered safe for the incumbent.

Similarly, IA-03 is nowhere to be found on Swing State Project’s list of competitive U.S. House races.

What about that big “head start” the Republicans supposedly got while Boswell was facing a primary challenge? The most recent Federal Election Commission reporting, based on the May 14, 2008 filings, show that Boswell had raised about $1.16 million this election cycle and had about $709,000 cash on hand.

Republican candidate Kim Schmett had raised about $54,500 so far this year and had just under $33,300 cash on hand.

Let Red Brannan and the others who funded the smear campaign against Ed Fallon replenish Boswell’s campaign coffers.

Democrats in the third district should vote for Boswell in November, but don’t be a sucker–plenty of other Democratic candidates need and deserve your donations more.

Speaking of which, I have given Becky Greenwald $100. Go here if you would like to contribute to her campaign. A strong fundraising number at the end of the second quarter would give her a boost against Tom Latham.

UPDATE: Another worthy candidate is Iowa native Heather Ryan, who is running against a horrible incumbent Republican in Kentucky’s first district. RDemocrat’s latest post on that race is here.

I will write more about the third district primary later this week, but for now I want to say this: challenging Congressman Leonard Boswell was a worthwhile effort.

This race forced Boswell to work a little harder on constituent service. To cite just one example, Windsor Heights is about to get a new zip code, which probably wouldn’t be happening if not for the primary.

More important, this race forced Boswell to move to a better place on several issues of national importance. If not for Ed Fallon, I doubt Boswell would have signed on to a strong global warming bill, and I think he would still be voting for blank checks to fund the war in Iraq.

If not for Fallon, Boswell would in all likelihood not have given this speech during the House debate over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in March:

Just a few weeks before that speech, Boswell had publicly advocated for granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies in the FISA bill.

Will these changes last? Representative Jane Harman (D, CA-36) has a much better voting record since she faced a progressive primary challenger two years ago.

It is too early to say whether Boswell will follow a similar path, or whether he will revert to his earlier voting patterns. I hope that he will think twice about voting with House Republicans on high-profile issues after all of his campaign’s talk about standing up to George Bush and fighting for Democratic values.

I don’t expect any other Democrat to run against Boswell. Although there is a clear opening for someone to run against him from the left (especially if that someone didn’t support Ralph Nader in 2000), most politically ambitious Democrats don’t like to burn bridges with the whole party establishment.

For what it’s worth, a Boswell voter I know, who is much better connected than I am, thinks there may be a Democrat or two who would consider taking on the incumbent in 2010. If the right kind of candidate laid the groundwork for a vigorous challenge early, perhaps Boswell would retire before the next election cycle.

In any event, I am glad that Fallon gave me and 13,000 other third district Democrats a chance to vote for someone who would better represent progressive values in Congress.

I wrote last week that Congressman Leonard Boswell’s closing argument is “I’m loyal, he voted for Nader.” A radio ad I heard in the car on Monday confirmed that impression.

I couldn’t jot down notes and have been unable to find an audio file of this ad on the web, but I will update this post with that information if someone can send it to me.

The ad used a female voice-over rather than Boswell’s voice. The first part of the ad relayed positive information about the incumbent:

-The teachers have endorsed Boswell because of his work on education.

-The nurses have endorsed Boswell because of his work on health care.

-Working families support Boswell because he stands up for them.

-Al Gore and Tom Harkin are also supporting Boswell.

Then the ad shifts gears with language about how it’s a different story with Ed Fallon. Fallon supported Ralph Nader over Al Gore in 2000. Because Fallon campaigned for Nader instead of Gore, Democrats have been stuck with eight years of President George W. Bush, with a lousy economy and an unending war in Iraq.

All of the above is a paraphrase based on my best recollection. If anyone else has heard this ad (or better yet, has a recording of it), I would love to post a more precise version of its contents.

On one level, I am not surprised that Boswell is talking about Nader in his radio ads, because that is clearly his trump card.

On the other hand, I expected Boswell to stick to all-positive advertising in broadcast media. Typically an incumbent does not go negative on a primary challenger unless there is some concern about the outcome.

By the way, on Saturday and Monday I didn’t receive any direct-mail from either Boswell’s campaign or the anti-Fallon group Independent Voices.

As far as I can tell, the Boswell campaign’s attempt to draw a contrast between Boswell and Fallon regarding methamphetamine got no traction in any Iowa mainstream media. Please correct me if I am wrong, and let me know if you have seen media reports on that issue in the past couple of days.

UPDATE: Boswell’s campaign manager Scott Ourth sent out his final mass e-mail yesterday. I’ve put the full text after the jump.

Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign put out a press release on Saturday seeking to contrast the incumbent’s record with Ed Fallon’s record on fighting methamphetamine use in Iowa:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE          

May 31, 2008

CONTACT:

Betsy Shelton, 515-238-3356

Boswell Committed to Fighting Iowa’s Meth Crisis

Des Moines, IA – Today Polk County Attorney John Sarcone and Dave Murillo, President of the Des Moines Police Burial and Protective Association, praised Congressman Leonard Boswell for his important work and leadership in fighting Iowa’s methamphetamine crisis.

Boswell thanked Sarcone and Murillo for their support.  “John Sarcone and Dave Murillo are out there fighting the meth epidemic every day.  I will continue to do all I can to help secure funding to provide law enforcement with the proper tools and training to end the manufacture and use of methamphetamine.”

“Congressman Boswell has been a staunch ally and supporter of law enforcement during his tenure in Washington,” said Murillo.  :He is a rarity in politics today as he is man of his word.  Leonard has taken a strong stand against the illegal narcotics trade, and the manufacture, sale and use of illegal drugs.  Leonard has always been a huge supporter of law enforcement and public safety.”

“Congressman Boswell was ahead of the curve on fighting the meth epidemic when he co-founded the Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine,” stated Polk County Attorney John Sarcone.  “He secured funding for the Drug Endangered Children program which has dramatically helped law enforcement get special services to children whose parents used and manufactured meth in home.”  Sarcone added, “Ed Fallon has never championed any cause for law enforcement. Leonard has always been there for us and his fight against the meth epidemic is a perfect example of his support of law enforcement.”

During his legislative tenure, Fallon opposed appropriations to fight the growing meth epidemic and to establish mandatory jail sentences for persons found in possession of methamphetamine.  Fallon also voted against increased funding for law enforcement in the fight against meth.  He was one of only six House members to vote against a $3.3 million plan to fight Iowa’s meth epidemic with a combination of treatment, education, and tougher enforcement measures.  At the time, Fallon told the Cedar Rapids Gazette, “This bill is the easy way out.”  Fallon was the only House member to oppose an increase in penalties for people manufacturing meth in the presence of a minor.

Congressman Boswell served as co-chair of the Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine, and has championed legislation that has successfully clamped down on the meth labs that threaten Iowa’s communities.  Boswell has long been a leader in the fight against methamphetamine use.

I was not living in Iowa in 1999, when the legislature approved the $3.3 million bill on methamphetamine. I was unable to find the article quoting Fallon on the Cedar Rapids Gazette’s website. However, when I contacted Fallon’s campaign for a comment on this press release, they forwarded the entire article to me.

Here is a larger excerpt from the Cedar Rapids Gazette article from March 16, 1999:

Detractors of the bill said it will add burden to already overcrowded county jails and courthouses and mask the inadequate response to treatment with get-tough enforcement measures that are easier to tout politically.

“In my very strong opinion, this bill is not going to do it,” said Rep. Ed Fallon, D-Des Moines, one of six representatives to oppose the measure. “This bill is the easy way out. If this legislation is going to be taken seriously, we’re going to have to appropriate quite a bit of money.”

So while the Boswell press release gives the impression that Fallon was not interested in fighting meth use in Iowa, the context makes clear that Fallon opposed the bill because it did not do enough to address the problem.

Did the 1999 legislation solve the meth use problem in Iowa? Apparently not, because a state government report issued in October 2004 determined that “Methamphetamine has become an increasing problem in Iowa over the last 10 years.”

Since that 1999 bill was enacted, the Iowa legislature has addressed methamphetamine several more times. The most significant effort seems to be Senate File 169, which passed the legislature unanimously in 2005. Instead of increasing the penalties for manufacturing meth, that law sought to restrict access to a component used in manufacturing meth. State Drug Policy Coordinator Marvin L. Van Haaften reported to the legislature the following year,

Senate File 169-unanimously approved last year by the Legislature, signed into law by Governor Vilsack, and implemented May 21, 2005-classified the key ingredient used to make methamphetamine (meth) as a Schedule V Controlled Substance. Commonly referred to as Iowa’s pseudoephedrine (PSE) control or meth lab reduction law, this statute removed all cold and allergy products containing PSE from store shelves and placed the vast majority of them behind the pharmacy counter to be dispensed on a controlled non-prescription basis.

Between June and December 2005, Iowa meth lab incidents plummeted nearly 80 percent compared to the same period in 2004, as shown in the month-by-month comparisons from the Iowa Department of Public Safety, Division of Narcotics Enforcement below.

[…]

The imprint of Senate File 169 on public safety may be summed up best by one of the State’s top prosecutors. United States Attorney for the Northern District of Iowa-Charles Larson-has stated publicly that in his many years of public service in the criminal justice arena he’s “never seen one law have a larger impact on reducing crime.”

It’s certainly worthwhile to reduce the number of meth labs operating in Iowa. But did the 2005 law reduce meth use or meth addiction in this state?

Not according to the state drug policy coordinator’s 2006 report:

Verbatim drug treatment survey comments:

• “Our meth clients have large numbers of special needs that overwhelm our case managers…Treatment is taking longer because of reduced cognitive ability, which needs to be addressed in order to obtain participation in the treatment process.”

• “The number of female clients reporting meth usage has increased.”

• “Our available data indicate no substantial change in the areas outlined in this survey since the pseudoephedrine control law has been in effect.”

• “I have actually had clients tell me that the law has impacted the ability to make meth in northeast Iowa, and therefore the availability.”

• “The State must understand that while the new law regulating the purchase of pseudoephedrine has worked to reduce the number of meth labs in the State, the incidence and prevalence of meth abuse continues to rise. This is not a failure of the law, but the realities of the epidemic.”

All signs point toward a continued strong demand for meth in Iowa. At best, meth use appears to be holding steady at a relatively high level. At worst, more Iowans are getting hooked on this super-addictive stimulant.

Sounds like Fallon was right in 1999, when he called for allocating more resources to treating methamphetamine addicts.

Here is a link to a pdf file containing Marvin L. Van Haaften’s report from January 2006.

Ed Fallon’s campaign sent out a press release on Friday highlighting points he made in a resolution he offered as a member of the Iowa House before the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003.

Click here to read House Resolution 17, which Fallon offered and 20 other Iowa House Democrats co-sponsored. The resolution didn’t go anywhere; Republicans controlled the chamber in 2003.

Here is the release from the Fallon campaign:

Before the War, Fallon Took Lead Against Invading Iraq

Friday, May 30, 2008 (4:30 PM CDT) – Today, Ed Fallon reiterated that the war in Iraq is one of the main reasons he decided to challenge Congressman Boswell. Boswell voted for the war and continued to vote to fund it until last year. Fallon said, “Congressman Boswell says in his mailers that he’s standing up to George Bush to end the war. But where was he most of the past five years?”

In stark contrast, while serving as a State Representative in 2003, Ed Fallon authored HR 17 to encourage the President not to initiate a preemptive, unilateral military strike against Iraq. Fallon was joined by 20 other Democrats who co-sponsored the resolution.

Fallon claimed he had it right, stating in HR 17 that the war would:

   * Undermine our efforts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. Bin Laden remains at large.

   * Destabilize the region. Iran has only grown in influence as a result of the war.

   * Turn into a humanitarian disaster. Iraqi civilians have suffered greatly throughout the war.

   * Lead to a long-term military presence in Iraq. U.S. troops have now been in Iraq longer than they were engaged in WWII.

   * Cause America to bear most of the financial cost of the war, which we have.

   * Cost between $100 billion and $1 trillion, and we are now almost at a trillion dollars.

   * Cost us $15-$20 billion per year. That was a conservative estimate: the actual cost is about $12 billion a month, or $144 billion a year.

   * Cause deeper federal budget deficits, further weakening the economy and undermining of the long-term prospects for solvency the Social Security and Medicare systems.

Fallon says, “Those who voted for this war had it wrong on so many levels. They were duped by President Bush’s propaganda machine and failed to understand how the war would cripple our economy, leave thousands dead or injured, and polarize our nation. Congress needs leaders who are able to think critically before similar mistakes are made in the future.”

Before the Iowa caucuses, Barack Obama’s presidential campaign widely distributed the text and the DVD of the speech he gave in October 2002 opposing pre-emptive war in Iraq.

It makes sense for Fallon to emphasize this point in light of Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign communications that say the incumbent is “working every day” to end the war and bring the troops home.

The question is how many Democratic voters will hear this message from the Fallon campaign. This is where the resources for district-wide direct mail or television ads would have come in handy.

Fallon was scheduled to be at the downtown Des Moines farmer’s market all morning today. (More than 10,000 people attend that market on a typical Saturday.) I have another commitment today, but if you saw Fallon’s booth at the market, please post a comment to let us know what kind of campaign literature was being distributed. Did they have anything focusing on his early opposition to the Iraq War?

Wow, I never knew Red Brannan, one of the developers who would like to see a four-lane beltway constructed in rural northeast Polk County, was so mad when Ed Fallon voted against residency restrictions for sex offenders in 2002.

But that vote must have really gotten Brannan riled up, because today I got another direct-mail piece on the issue from the 527 group Independent Voices. On Tuesday a similar mailer arrived from the same group, which I transcribed here. Matt Stoller put a scanned image of the earlier mailer up at Open Left.

Today’s mailer has a large photo of an empty child’s swing, next to these words in large print:

Would you want a sex offender living near your kid’s school?

At the bottom in small print it says, “Paid for By Independent Voices, Red Brannan Chair.” Hey, at least there’s a union bug next to that line!

On the flip side the same photo of an empty swing appears faintly. There’s a smaller picture of Fallon near the bottom of the page, holding up one finger, as if lecturing. These words appear on the page:

Ed Fallon put kids at risk simply to make a political statement

When Ed Fallon had the chance to stop convicted sex offenders from living near our schools, he thought it was more important to make a political statement than to protect our kids. He cast the only vote against this prohibition in the state house.

Our kids have enough challenges, why would Ed let these predators live next to our schools?

Associated Press   October 14, 2005

Fallon concedes he is the only lawmaker who opposed the restrictions.

“There was a fear that if we don’t support this bill we’ll be viewed as weak on crime.”

Call Ed at 515.277.0424

Tell Ed our kids are more important than his politics. As him to oppose letting convicted sex offenders live near our schools.

The hypocrisy of this mailing is breathtaking. As I mentioned in the post about the previous mailer on this subject, residency restrictions for sex offenders do nothing to reduce crimes against children–prosecutors and children’s advocates agree on this point. The proponents of these laws are the ones who would rather “make a political statement” than protect our kids.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board described the earlier mailer from Independent Voices as “the cheapest of cheap shots.”

This letter to the editor, published today, made several great points as well:

The 2,000-foot law was passed as a knee-jerk reaction to high-profile abuse cases. The result has been a drop in the number of sex offenders registering their address and the creation of rural communities comprising mainly sex offenders. What the law fails to take into account is the fact that only a small minority of sex offenders are playground pedophiles.

About 80 percent of abuse victims knew the offender and 43 percent are relatives. I ask both Fallon and U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell, along with all other lawmakers, to take the time to develop sensible laws that promote rehabilitation and judge offenses on a case-by-case basis. Sexually active high schoolers shouldn’t be categorized with rapists and punished just as harshly.

– Jade Howser Nagel, Urbandale

The political posturing of the majority of Iowa legislators has drained law enforcement resources and led to fewer sex offenders registering their addresses. That doesn’t keep my two young kids or anyone else’s kids safer, and Red Brannan’s group should know this very well.

Will this mailing scare third district Democrats away from Fallon, or will it backfire? Your guess is as good as mine.

Al Gore has already sent out e-mails and letters raising money for Congressman Leonard Boswell, and now he has a starring role in the direct-mail piece I received today from the Boswell campaign.

I don’t have any problem with Gore campaigning for Boswell.

I do wish Boswell had absorbed the message of Gore’s September 2002 speech on “Iraq and the War on Terrorism.”  

I also wish Boswell had talked with Gore before voting for George Bush’s energy bill in 2005.

Finally, I wish Boswell would have signed on as a co-sponsor of the Safe Climate Act last summer, when many House Democrats did, instead of waiting until December, after he had learned Ed Fallon was planning to run against him.

A description and full transcript of Boswell’s direct-mail piece is after the jump.

I have not seen this ad yet, and I can’t find anything on You Tube or Leonard Boswell’s campaign website, but the Des Moines Register on Wednesday summarized a 30-second television commercial Boswell has started running:

OPPOSITION TO BUSH: Boswell, who is seeking his seventh term, highlights in the ad his opposition to proposed Bush administration spending cuts in college loan programs this year. Boswell, facing a challenge from former state Rep. Ed Fallon of Des Moines, has been criticized by some liberals for supporting some Bush administration proposals.

A LOYAL DEMOCRAT: The ad closes with a narrator saying, “Leonard Boswell, a trusted Democrat, always standing up for you.”

I’ll update this post with the video if someone can send me the link.

Good for Boswell for opposing spending cuts in college loan programs. (If he had been consistently willing to stand up to the Bush administration and the Republican policy agenda, this primary wouldn’t even be happening, but that’s another story.)

Also on Wednesday, I received a direct-mail piece from the Boswell campaign about Ed Fallon’s support for Ralph Nader in 2000. This is the third such mailing the campaign has sent out. The first two hit mailboxes in April, and I transcribed them here and here.

This mailing is similar in design, but it uses a normal font instead of that “scary font” that looks like it came from a ransom note, which appeared in the earlier two Nader mailings.

On one side, there’s a photo of the bottom half of Fallon’s smiling face, and this text (partly in white, partly in Hawkeye gold against a black background):

Ed Fallon opposed Al Gore in 2000

“If I had three hands maybe I could hold my nose, my gut and my mouth and vote for Al Gore. But in good conscience, I can’t, I won’t, and you shouldn’t either.”

(New York Times, 10/29/2000)

Fallon supported Ralph Nader instead…

The other side has large photos of Fallon’s and Nader’s faces next to each other. The text reads:

Ed Fallon Let Iowa Democrats Down by Endorsing Ralph Nader

Ed Fallon claims to be a real Democrat, but in 2000 he helped elect George Bush by endorsing and actively campaigning for Ralph Nader.1 The Bush presidency has been a disaster. We are mired in a War with no exit strategy and have an economy in recession with rising costs that are hurting Iowans. Ed Fallon now says it was a mistake, but his judgment let Iowa Democrats and our nation down–how can we trust him to represent our values in Congress?

1 Des Moines Register, 1/25/01, 11/18/00, 10/31/00

Enough Phony Politics. Say NO to Ed Fallon.

For several weeks a photo of Gore along with a quote supporting Boswell have been prominently featured on the front page of Boswell’s campaign website.

I’ve been saying all year that Nader is a strong card for Boswell to play, because it’s the only way for this incumbent who has repeatedly voted with Republicans and corporate interests to cast himself as a more loyal Democrat than Fallon.

I know people who are voting for Boswell solely because of Nader.

That said, many Gore voters like myself have decided that this isn’t a deal-breaker, in light of Boswell’s voting record.

I have no idea whether a third Nader mailing will push additional voters into Boswell’s camp. By now everyone politically active knows about this issue.

Final, unrelated point: Marc Hansen’s latest column on Boswell’s refusal to debate is funny.

The day after I received a misleading hit piece on Ed Fallon, a second mailer from the 527 group Independent Voices arrived in the mail.

This one shows a cornfield on one side, with these words in large print:

Why Doesn’t Ed Fallon

Support Iowa’s

Ethanol Industry?

At the bottom of that side, it says, “Paid for By Independent Voices, Red Brannan Chair”

The other side has corn kernels in the background, as well as a photo of Fallon and a graphic of a container for gasoline with corn flowing out of the spout. The text on this page says,

CORN

Helping Us Become Independent of Foreign Oil

Iowa’s ability to produce corn efficiently has helped us become the national leader for ethanol production.

Alternative fuels are one way to end our dependence on Middle East oil. Ending that oil dependence could also revitalize Iowa’s economy if we are able to continue our national leadership in alternative fuel production.

So why did Ed Fallon say he wouldn’t support subsidies for ethanol production right here in Iowa?

Call Ed at 515.277.0420

Tell Ed Fallon he should quit supporting policies that cost us money at the pump.

Of course, this direct-mail piece doesn’t tell the whole story. Many people think subsidies to support corn-based ethanol production are no longer needed. Fallon advocates moving toward producing ethanol from cellulosic sources other than corn, and there are strong arguments in favor of doing so.

I mentioned in my earlier post that Fallon’s position on other issues (besides the ones mentioned in these mailers) run counter to the interests of Brannan, a developer.

If anyone has information about other donors who are funding the Independent Voices group, please either put up a comment in this thread or e-mail me confidentially at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.

UPDATE: The fliers sent by Independent Voices are discussed in this article from Thursday’s Des Moines Register:

Fallon supports ethanol subsidies, although he has said corn-based ethanol is not a permanent solution to weaning the United States off imported petroleum. “Corn-based ethanol is a step in the right direction, but it’s not the end of that journey,” Fallon said.

The mailers list the group’s chairman as Red Brannan, an Ankeny Democrat and former member of the Polk County Board of Supervisors. Aides to Boswell said Brannan has not made financial contributions to the campaign. Attempts to reach Brannan Wednesday evening were unsuccessful.

I believe that Brannan has not donated directly to Boswell’s campaign, because I couldn’t find his name when I searched for it at Open Secrets.

Remember, a person can make unlimited donations to a group like Independent Voices, whereas contributions to a Congressional campaign are capped at $2,300 for the primary and $2,300 for the general election.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board slammed the first mailing from Independent Voices as “the cheapest of cheap shots” and has called on Boswell to reject the tactics used by Brannan’s group.

When the Des Moines Register headlined its endorsement of Ed Fallon “Unleash Fallon’s Energy in Congress,” it reminded me that I have not yet transcribed the Fallon campaign’s main piece of literature.

Chase Martyn suggested today that Fallon’s campaign has “spent more on printing its glossy, full-color brochures than it probably should have, considering it has not yet sent out districtwide direct mail.” That may be true, but Fallon volunteers and staffers have been handing out this 11 by 16-inch tri-fold while canvassing or tabling at public events for months. Thousands of Democrats in the district would have received it by now.

After the jump I’ve transcribed the brochure that lays out the central arguments of the Fallon campaign.

An 8 1/2 by 11 direct-mail piece arrived in the mail today from a 527 group called Independent Voices. On one side there’s a big photo of a man in an orange jump suit labeled “PRISONER,” who is looking through a chain-link fence at a group of children. The text reads

Why Does Ed Fallon Think It’s O.K. For Sex Offenders to Live Near Schools?

Ed Fallon voted to allow sex offenders to live within 2,000 feet of our schools and day care centers

At the bottom in small print it says, “Paid for by Independent Voices, Red Brannan Chair”

The other side has the same photo of the prisoner, with a large photo of Ed Fallon and the following text superimposed:

Fallon Cast the Only Vote To Allow Sex Offenders to Live Near our Schools

Associated Press      October 14, 2005

Fallon concedes he is the only lawmaker who opposed the restrictions.

“There was a fear that if we don’t support this bill we’ll be viewed as weak on crime.”

Parents know how many challenges kids face after they leave the house for school. Ed Fallon thought it was more important to cast his vote to make a political statement than to cast a vote that protects our kids from these dangerous predators. That’s not the help our kids need.

Call Ed at 515.277.0424

Tell Ed that sex offenders shouldn’t be living next to our schools.

First, it’s important to note that Red Brannan is a developer who disagrees with Fallon’s stands on reducing urban sprawl and curbing abuses of eminent domain. Brannan and many other developers would like to see a four-lane beltway constructed through a rural area in northeast Polk County. Boswell is committed to seeking federal funding for this project, which would require hundreds of millions of dollars in public spending. Fallon opposes the northeast Polk County beltway for various reasons; it’s a bad use of federal transportation dollars and would be bad for the environment as well.

But let’s take this mailer at face value and assume that Red Brannan and the rest of the financial backers of this 527 group really are bent out of shape over Fallon’s vote on the sex offender residency restriction law.

There are two kinds of laws: those that address a problem, and those that give a politically convenient appearance of addressing a problem.

At least 22 states have barred sex offenders from living within a certain distance of schools, but it’s misleading to suggest that those laws do anything to protect children from predators:

But residency restrictions for sex offenders not only don’t seem to be working as promised, there’s some indication that by hindering smarter practices they help increase the danger of molestation. And despite their popularity with lawmakers and the public, they have not been universally embraced, even by those in the law enforcement community. A January 2007 resolution passed by the American Correctional Association declares, “There is no evidence to support the efficacy of broadly applied residential restrictions on sex offenders.” A 2006 statement issued by the Iowa County Attorneys Association on that state’s residency restriction requirements takes a similar view, asserting, “There is no demonstrated protective effect of the residency requirement that justifies the huge draining of scarce law enforcement resources in the effort to enforce the restriction.”

Got that? They do nothing to reduce crimes against children and drain resources away from law enforcement.

Not only that, prosecutors and advocates for missing and exploited children agree on the uselessness of such laws:

In Iowa, which in 2002 became one of the first states to impose residency restrictions, police and prosecutors have united in opposition to the law, saying that it drives offenders underground and that there is “no demonstrated protective effect,” according to a statement by the Iowa County Attorneys Association, which represents prosecutors.

“The law was well-intentioned, but we don’t see any evidence of a connection between where a person lives and where they might offend,” said Corwin R. Ritchie, executive director of the group.

Enforcing the law consumes lots of law enforcement time, he said, and leads some offenders to list interstate rest stops or Wal-Mart parking lots as their addresses.

“Our concern is that these laws may give a false sense of security,” said Carolyn Atwell-Davis, director of legislative affairs for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. “We’re not aware of any evidence that residency restrictions have prevented a child from being victimized.”

So while the mailer accuses Fallon of casting his vote “to make a political statement,” the opposite is true: all of the other legislators who voted for this bill were making a political statement rather than doing something real to help protect children and support law enforcement efforts.

One reason Fallon is so unpopular with the legislative leadership is that he refused to go along with this kind of phony “solution” when he was in the Iowa House.

The irony is that in its endorsement of Fallon, the Des Moines Register mentioned this very vote as an example of how he was “frequently on the right side of issues.” The editorial board noted that the residency restriction has driven up costs for law enforcement while making it more difficult for them to track sex offenders.

But I’m not surprised that a group of Boswell backers resorted to this misleading line of attack. Anything that diverts voters’ attention from Boswell’s voting record, which is out of step with the Democrats he represents, can’t be bad for the incumbent.

I have no idea whether this mailer will significantly increase support for Boswell or whether it will primarily make Fallon’s supporters that much more determined to get out the vote.

No time for a long post now, but you can read the Register’s endorsement of Fallon here.

The same editorial board that picked Hillary Clinton because of her experience and knowledge of the issues wasn’t impressed by Leonard Boswell.

Time for new energy in Congress.

The Register will endorse a candidate in the fourth district primary tomorrow.

Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign finally released some results from its internal polling today. An e-mail from campaign manager Scott Ourth said that according to a survey by Anzalone Liszt Research, 65 percent of likely primary voters would vote for Boswell.

If Boswell did win 65 percent of the vote on June 3, he would do slightly better than 8-year incumbent Jane Harman did in the 2006 primary to represent California’s 36th district. Harman, who like Boswell was backed by pretty much the whole state Democratic Party establishment, defeated peace activist Marcy Winograd by 62.4 percent to 37.5 percent.

The e-mail from the Boswell campaign did not contain details such as:

-which days the poll was in the field

-the number of respondents surveyed

-what criteria were used to code a respondent as a likely voter

-the pollster’s projected turnout for June 3

-support for the candidates among men vs. women and in various age groups

-the percent for Ed Fallon versus undecided.

I have asked for more information about the poll and will update this post if I receive answers from the Boswell campaign.

It mentioned that 63 percent of those who attended the Iowa caucuses in January said they would vote for Boswell if the election were held today–though it is not clear from the e-mail whether those who attended caucuses were automatically included in the likely voter pool for the primary.

About 58,000 people in Iowa’s third district attended Democratic caucuses on January 3. Only about 38,000 people in the third district voted in the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial primary.

I have not heard any projections from the Boswell campaign about how many people they expect to turn out on June 3.

Ourth’s e-mail alludes to mailing in early ballots. Presumably there has been an extensive effort to get supporters to return absentee ballots. Fallon’s campaign has also been urging supporters to vote early.

The e-mail also boasts that Boswell doubled Fallon’s fundraising during the latest reporting period, from April 1 to May 14. It links to this report from the Des Moines Register:

Federal Election Commission records show that Boswell, of Des Moines, took in more than $180,000 in contributions between April 1 and May 14. Of that sum, $93,000 came from political action committees, or a little more than half of his total donations.

Boswell, who’s been in office since 1996 and sits on the House agriculture and transportation committees, reported $709,000 cash on hand. He spent $311,000 during the period battling Fallon.

Fallon, also of Des Moines, reported that he collected nearly $73,000, including a $25 contribution from his own pocket. Fallon has been endorsed by groups such as Democracy for America that have assisted him in gaining individual contributions on the Internet, which he has needed since he does not accept PAC money.

Fallon spent about $64,000 during the period and said he had about $28,000 cash on hand by May 14.

Fallon’s campaign strategy has focused on building a strong field operation. During his liveblog session at the EENR blog today, he expressed optimism based on his campaign’s direct voter contacts, and mentioned that yesterday alone the campaign had over 2,200 phone calls and door knocks. Lacking the money to match Boswell’s spending on direct-mail and advertising, Fallon’s chance to pull off an upset depends on the success of his efforts to identify and turn out supporters.

As for the issues, Boswell is still trying to downplay differences between himself and Fallon, telling a reporter for the weekly Cityview,

“If you look at the issues, there’s just not a lot of difference between us,” Boswell said. “He’s taking things out of context and trying to conjure up differences that don’t exist.”

That same article quotes Boswell as promising to support the winner of the primary, which is the first time I’ve heard him make that pledge. He must be feeling very confident, since earlier this spring his campaign would not give me an unequivocal statement promising to support the winner of the primary.

Meanwhile, Boswell’s Congressional office will not take my phone calls or return my voice mail messages seeking clarification of his stand on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. More background on that issue is in this post.

If Boswell has quietly agreed to go along with Republican efforts to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies, despite his public stand with House Democrats on this issue in March, the voters of the third district deserve to know about it.

The full text of today’s e-mail from campaign manager Scott Ourth is after the jump.

If you’re reading this diary before 1 pm, there is still time to click over and ask a question:

http://www.eenrblog.com/showDi…

Otherwise, you can click the link later to read the transcript of the liveblog session.

Greetings Bleeding Heartland Readers,

 My name is Benny and I am one of the editors at the EENR Blog.   Some of us have been lurkers at Bleeding Heartland and occasional commenters here, especially last year, when Iowa was upon the eyes of the world as being the first in the nation for caucuses and primaries.  

A little intro:

Our acronym, “Edwards Evolution, Next Revolution,” reflects the formation of the EENR group originally as Edwards Evening News Roundup for supporters of John Edwards during the 2008 presidential primary.

We have continued as EENR because we want to continue the movement for progressive change based on the platform laid out by John Edwards, which we consider the gold standard model for progress in America. We are not affiliated in any way with John Edwards, except as supporters, but we have retained his surname in our acronym as a nod to his significant contribution to the progressive movement.

More after the jump

Ed Fallon has again emphasized agricultural policy in his campaign against Congressman Leonard Boswell.

Contact: Stacy Brenton

Fallon for Congress

(515) 822-3029

stacy@fallonforcongress.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Fallon Kicks Off ‘New Energy for Iowa Tour’

Proposes National CAFO Moratorium

Monday, May 19, 2008 – Today in Des Moines, Ed Fallon kicked off his ‘New Energy for Iowa Tour’ with an announcement that if elected to Congress, Fallon would propose a national moratorium on hog confinements built by big corporations. Fallon sees this as a critical step toward restoring vitality to rural areas suffering from the loss of populations, farm employment and economic development.”

Fallon says, “Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) are having an adverse effect on the environment, agriculture, health and local farm and business operations. We need to stop the consolidation and explosion of this industry and renew our commitment to growing a sustainable economy and quality of life in rural Iowa. I commit to leading the way on this issue in Washington, given the lack of leadership here at the state level.”

Fallon and Boswell have drawn contrasts with one another on farm policy several times during this campaign. In general, Boswell is happy with current federal agriculture policies and is proud of his work on them, while Fallon is not satisfied with the priorities that guide current agriculture policies.

Fallon is right to say CAFOs should be a federal concern, because there appears to be little hope of making progress on regulating them at the state level.

Meanwhile, evidence is mounting that CAFOs incur huge hidden costs on society.

For more on why Fallon is right on this issue, read the final report from the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production and this recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, “CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations.”

Democracy for America, which endorsed Ed Fallon in February, has sent out another e-mail supporting his candidacy to its members:

Dear [desmoinesdem],

How many times this year did you wake up and say to yourself: America needs more from our elected Democrats?

I’ve said it too many times to count. That’s why our Primaries Matter campaigns are so important.

When Donna Edwards sent Bush Democrat Al Wynn packing a few months ago, we shook the establishment and sent a message to Democrats in Congress: move America forward or move out of Washington.

Now, Ed Fallon is working to beat Bush Democrat Leonard Boswell on June 3 in the Iowa primary and Rep. Boswell is running scared.

CONTRIBUTE $30 RIGHT NOW

How do we know we have this Bush Democrat on the ropes?

Well it’s not just the desperate Washington-style attack ads Boswell is running to distort Ed’s record. And it isn’t just the favors Boswell called in to get his beltway friends raising money in a panic for the campaign.

It’s the Boswell record that tells the real story of this campaign:

Boswell used to vote for the war and every chance to fund it.

Since Ed Fallon challenged him, Boswell votes against it.

Boswell used to vote for illegal spying on Americans.

Since Ed Fallon challenged him, Boswell votes against it.

But it’s clear that turning Rep. Boswell into some sort of “Ed Fallon-Lite” isn’t going to cut it. We need a real progressive in office who will stand with his constituents all the time — not just when it’s politically convenient.

With your contribution today, our victory in June will wake up Congress and send the message: Shape up or ship out.

Take Ed Fallon over the top: CONTRIBUTE $30 NOW

Thank you for taking action today,

-Charles

Charles Chamberlain

Political Director

Democracy for America’s appeal in February generated donations from more than 1,000 individuals. I’ll be watching the Act Blue page over the next day or so to see how they do this time.

For more information on the differences between Fallon and Boswell on the issues, click here.

For more on Boswell’s voting record in Congress, check out this website created by Progressive Kick.

A little more than two weeks before the Democratic primary in Iowa’s third Congressional district, Ed Fallon has challenged Congressman Leonard Boswell to shift his support as a superdelegate from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.

It’s a shrewd move for several reasons.

First, Iowa’s third district went for Obama in January, as yesterday’s press release from Fallon underscores:

Fallon says, “Even though Hillary Clinton finished behind Barack Obama and John Edwards in the Third Congressional District, Congressman Boswell continues to ignore the will of the majority by saying he will cast his superdelegate vote for Clinton.”

Fallon worked with John Edwards through the Iowa Caucuses and then endorsed Barack Obama in February. Fallon says, “Both Obama and Edwards are people whose principles reflect my belief that we need to get big money out of politics and stand up to the special interests to accomplish real change in this country. It’s time to come together and focus on defeating John McCain in November.”

As I’ve written before, Fallon yard signs are often seen in the same yards as the Obama “HOPE” signs, while Boswell’s yard signs are frequently paired with Hillary signs.

Any further publicity that aligns Fallon with Obama, and Boswell with Clinton, can’t hurt the challenger and may even sway some undecided Democrats.

Second, Obama is coming back to Des Moines this Tuesday for a victory rally on the night when he is expected to win a majority of the Democratic Party’s pledged delegates. This will surely be a big media event.

Fallon spoke at a Nation for Change rally supporting Obama in Des Moines last month. Whether or not Fallon is able to address the crowd this coming Tuesday, Obama’s visit may generate some media coverage about which prominent Iowans are supporting Obama, and which are still with Clinton.

Third, since Boswell has rejected all invitations to debate, Fallon will not have many more opportunities to trip up the incumbent before the June 3 primary. Challenging Boswell to back Obama is a way to shift the media narrative.

Speaking of debates, Boswell has said he could not spare the time for them because he is too busy working on the farm bill and other legislation. But Congress has already sent the farm bill to President Bush and is likely to be in recess during the last week in May. It’s too bad that Boswell can’t be straightforward about his reasons for not debating Fallon.

A final note before I end this post: after trying for more than a week, I have so far been unable to get any comment from Boswell’s campaign or his Congressional office on whether Boswell was the Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee who on May 8 supported a Republican effort to add the Senate version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (which includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies) to the fiscal 2009 Intelligence authorization bill.

I am still trying to get someone who works for Boswell to confirm or deny this speculation and will bring you up to date on this soon.

Whoever wins the June 3 primary to represent Iowa’s third district, I think we all should agree that facing a primary challenge has nudged Congressman Leonard Boswell in some good directions. Not only has he come on board with federal legislation he didn’t back in the past (such as the Safe Climate Act), he has also stepped up his constituent service.

The Des Moines Register ran this article on Friday about Windsor Heights moving closer to getting a unique zip code for its residents:

Windsor Heights, which is surrounded completely by other cities, shares the ZIP codes of 50311, 50312 and 50322 with neighboring Des Moines and Urbandale.

Boswell in January introduced legislation, at the urging of Windsor Heights officials, that directs the postal service to designate a unique ZIP code for the city. Iowa Sens. Charles Grassley, a Republican, and Tom Harkin, a Democrat, introduced companion legislation in the U.S. Senate.

Windsor Heights spearheaded a crusade 10 years ago to secure a unique ZIP code for the community, where problems with mail deliveries have irritated residents for years.

Catch that? They’ve been working on this for 10 years. I know Windsor Heights residents who asked Boswell or his staffers years ago to help us get a zip code.

Windsor Heights officials get about 50 complaints a year about the city’s lack of a unique ZIP code. The issue is the top one residents complain about, city officials said.

[City administrator Marketa] Oliver praised the “dogged perseverance” of city leaders in getting the postal service to conduct the survey.

“When I heard, I went ‘Woo hoo,’ ” she said.

Mayor Jerry Sullivan contributed the announcement to support from the Iowa Congressional delegation.

“Leonard (Boswell), if he hadn’t spearheaded this for us, we wouldn’t have gotten to where we are today,” Sullivan said.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Boswell took the initiative on this issue right after Ed Fallon declared he was running for Congress.

This morning my family attended the annual pancake breakfast run by the Windsor Heights firefighters, and a person who has served on the city council agreed with me that we wouldn’t have made progress toward getting a zip code if it were not an election year.

I have no idea whether Windsor Heights’ three precincts will go for Boswell or Fallon on June 3, but I think all of the suburb’s residents should be glad the incumbent has been extra motivated to deliver to constituents lately.

The campaigns of Congressman Leonard Boswell and challenger Ed Fallon put out very different statements about ethanol on Thursday.

This isn’t the first time the candidates have clashed over agriculture policy. In general, Boswell is happy with our federal farm policies and touts how hard he is working to keep them the way they are.

Fallon would like to see a shift toward more support of local food networks and sustainable agriculture, as well as more regulations to address the economic, public health and environmental problems caused by confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

Join me after the jump for more discussion of the ethanol issue.

I got an e-mail from Ed Fallon’s campaign that contrasts Fallon’s “personal commitment” to transportation by bicycle with Congressman Leonard Boswell’s “photo-op” Bike to Work event on Monday morning:

Ed has been riding his bike as a consistent form of transportation for years. It’s his way of demonstrating his personal commitment and responsibility for reducing his carbon footprint.

The e-mail then shows a photo of Fallon “arriving by bike at his campaign office in the February snow,” as well as a photo of Boswell riding his bicycle on Monday, which the incumbent e-mailed to constituents:

Personal commitment or photo op?

You decide!

Speaking of Bike to Work Week, Fallon will be at the Handlebar Happy Hour on Friday at 5 pm at the El Bait Shop, 200 SW 2nd St, Des Moines.

Now, do I think Fallon would represent me better in Congress because he rides a bicycle regularly? No, but I do have confidence that because of this experience, he understands the need to make our roads more bike-friendly.

I know many people who are afraid to run errands on their bikes, but would consider it if there were bike lanes on more streets in the Des Moines area.

Although Boswell has served on the House Transportation Committee for some time, I have not seen any commitment from him to promoting “complete streets” that encourage travel by foot and by bicycle as well as by car.

I don’t care how often Boswell uses his bicycle as long as he gets behind the Safe and Complete Streets bill that Representative Doris Matsui recently introduced in the House. Tom Harkin has already introduced a similar bill in the U.S. Senate.

For whatever reason, Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign website (http://www.boswellforcongress.com) doesn’t seem to list upcoming events in the district anywhere, so I don’t always know when he plans to be in town. (Please correct me if there’s a page on the site I have missed–I’ve looked for an events calendar.)

Most candidates are happy to publicize upcoming local events. Maybe Boswell doesn’t want to call attention to his visits to the district because they undercut his claim that he is too busy working in Washington to debate Ed Fallon.  

I know he had a Bike to Work week event in Des Moines on Monday morning, and I heard he had some kind of event at Prairie Meadows the same day, but I don’t know if it was a campaign appearance or a fundraiser.

If you have heard about an event Boswell is holding in the district, please post a comment or a diary.

I am not a regular at Firedoglake, so I didn’t realize that Ed Fallon was liveblogging there on Saturday morning.

A lot of interesting questions about Fallon, Boswell and the district were asked and answered, so I recommend clicking here to read the thread.

Thanks to Bob in AZ for reminding me about the liveblog.

Matt Stoller put up a post at Open Left today regarding the latest attempt to get retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies into the House version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

As you may recall, the Senate version of the FISA bill includes retroactive immunity for telecoms. House Democrats have so far beaten back several attempts to add that provision to the House version of the FISA bill.

On Thursday, May 8, one of the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee tried to get the Senate version of the FISA bill added to the fiscal 2009 Intelligence authorization bill. That effort was defeated by a vote of 11-10.

However, twelve Democrats serve on the House Intelligence Committee, which means that one of them voted with the nine Republicans to try to get telecom immunity in the FISA bill.

The question is whether the Democrat who voted with Republicans was our own Congressman Leonard Boswell. He is one of two likely suspects, because he and Bud Cramer (AL-05) were the only two Democrats on this committee to sign a letter in February advocating retroactive immunity for telecoms in the House version of the FISA bill.

In March, Boswell changed his position and stood with the majority of House Democrats who do not want to grant telecoms immunity in the FISA bill.

Democrats in the third district deserve to know whether Boswell has quietly reverted to his initial position, in favor of telecom immunity. According to the Open Secrets website, Boswell’s PAC contributions for the 2007/2008 election cycle alone include $10,000 from AT&T and $2,000 from Verizon.

I am trying to get a comment on this from the Boswell campaign, and I will update this diary if and when I hear back from them.

Ed Fallon’s campaign is keeping up the pressure on Congressman Leonard Boswell to agree to a debate before the June 3 primary:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Fallon Encourages Groups to Host Joint Debate

Hopes Boswell will Reconsider

Thursday, May 8, 2008, (11:00 AM CDT) – Late yesterday, Ed Fallon sent a proposal to ten media outlets and organizations to join together to host a debate between him and Congressman Boswell. These ten were chosen because they recently issued their own debate invitations to Fallon and Boswell. Fallon accepted all ten invitations, while Boswell has not accepted one.

Fallon said, “I believe ten invitations reflect a clear mandate from the voters that they want a chance to see and hear from Congressman Boswell and me. Maybe Congressman Boswell will reconsider participating in a debate if this group can bring enough pressure to bear. It may be incentive enough for him to change his mind.”

Fallon has already heard back from four of the groups and all have expressed an interest in pursuing a joint debate. Fallon encourages any other groups interested in joining this effort to contact his campaign by Monday, May 12th. The Fallon campaign is only initially facilitating the effort to bring groups together to take the lead as the sponsoring organizations. Those interested should contact Stacy Brenton at stacy@fallonforcongress.com or 515-822-3029.

As I wrote earlier this week, Boswell’s excuse that he is just too busy to debate is not credible. He has been visiting the district for fundraisers and various public events. I saw him myself in Waukee on Sunday. Why couldn’t he have scheduled a debate for this past weekend, when he was planning to be in the Des Moines area anyway?

It’s not uncommon for an incumbent to refuse to debate a challenger, so as not to risk making a mistake or giving the rival favorable media exposure. But if Boswell is going to duck debates, the least he can do is be honest about his reasons.

On a related note, I mentioned on Tuesday that I hadn’t seen any yards with signs for both Hillary and Fallon. That changed this morning when I was walking my dog a mile or so from my house.

If you’ve seen Obama/Boswell or Hillary/Fallon combos in someone’s yard, please let us know.

Also, please post a comment or a diary if you’ve seen our “too-busy-working-in-Washington-to-debate” Congressman at an event in the third district recently.

UPDATE: I posted a diary about this at Open Left, and Bob in AZ asked if any organization would be willing to host an “empty chair debate,” which would attract even more media attention to Boswell’s refusal to show up and talk about the issues. That is a great idea. I would encourage the Fallon campaign to try to make that happen.

Another day, another action alert urging me to beg Congressman Leonard Boswell to stand with most House Democrats, instead of with the Bush administration:

Dear MoveOn member,

Tomorrow could be Congress’ last chance to exercise real oversight on the war. The media is paying less attention to Iraq, but we need to remind Rep. Boswell that voters aren’t-Americans are more frustrated with the war than ever before.

Can you call Rep. Boswell right now and tell him that voters are tired of dumping billions into the unwinnable war in Iraq? Tell Rep. Boswell that voters are looking for accountability from President Bush on the war and we want our troops home quickly. (We’ve included more details below.)

Here’s where to call:

Representative Leonard Boswell

Phone: 202-225-3806

Then, please report your call by clicking here:

http://pol.moveon.org/call?tg=…

According to news reports, Congress will have a series of separate votes. There’ll be one vote on whether to give the president $162 billion to fund the war through next year-with no strings attached. That’s a huge amount to spend on keeping troops in Iraq, especially at a time when peoples’ houses are being foreclosed and unemployment is going up at home.

Then, there will be separate votes on measures to redeploy our troops and hold the Bush administration accountable for their actions during the war-measures that could ban torture, hold contractors accountable, and prevent President Bush from committing our troops to a permanent presence in Iraq.1

It’s important that all members of Congress hear that voters do not want the president to get another $162 billion blank check for the war. Can you call Rep. Boswell and ask him to reject a blank check for the president and to support proposals to bring our troops home and hold Bush accountable instead?

Thanks for all you do.

–Nita, Michael, Daniel, Joan, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team

 Wednesday, May 7th, 2008

P.S. Here’s an excerpt from a Washington Post article explaining Thursday’s votes:

“Setting up their last major battle over war policy with President Bush, House Democrats yesterday unveiled a plan to link their favored domestic spending projects and a troop-withdrawal timeline to additional funds for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan requested by the White House.

The $195 billion spending measure would pay for the wars well into next year while tacking on $11 billion to extend unemployment benefits and nearly $1 billion to offer expanded higher education benefits for war veterans. Democrats said they hope that the spending provisions, particularly the education measure, will prove politically difficult for Bush to veto in an election year.

“If he wants to make a federal case out of the fact that we feel the need to do something major to reward the troops, that’s his prerogative. But I don’t think the country will agree with him. And I certainly don’t think the country would agree with any effort to deny the extension of unemployment benefits,” said House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.).

The White House remained opposed to the additional spending, demanding a “clean” bill to fund the wars by the symbolically important date of Memorial Day.

“We feel strongly that the Iraq war supplemental should remain for national security needs. We understand that there could be debates on other issues, such as unemployment benefits and food stamps, other issues that are important to a lot of people. But those issues can be taken up separate from our national security needs,” said Dana Perino, White House press secretary.

House Republicans also denounced the Democrats’ plan.

“It is unacceptable and, indeed, unimaginable for Congress to continue to hold our troops hostage for political leverage. If House Democrats want to ramp up spending on other government programs, those items should be considered separately,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

The House’s emergency supplemental funding measure is broken into three pieces, including $162.6 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, of which $66 billion is designed to cover war costs for several months after the next administration takes over. The second portion includes language mandating immediate troop withdrawals with a goal of having most all troops out by the end of 2009. The third part includes the domestic spending.”

Click here to read the whole thing:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3633…

Source:

1. “Leader Reid gets pushback on Iraq war bill,” The Hill, May 6, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3634…

Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.2 million members. We have no corporate contributors, no foundation grants, no money from unions. Our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. If you’d like to support our work, you can give now at:

http://political.moveon.org/do…

PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/

Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

I'm seeing more and more yard signs for Leonard Boswell and Ed Fallon as I drive around the western part of Des Moines and the suburbs. The Boswell signs are the same style he's been using for years, with a blue background and "Boswell for Congress" written in cursive white lettering. The Fallon signs are white with "Fallon for Congress" in green, and the tag line "New energy for Iowa" below in red letters.

Most of the time, these signs are the only ones in the yards. However, I've noticed quite a few homes with signs for both Hillary and Boswell. Similarly, I've noticed a lot of yards with Fallon signs and either the Obama "HOPE" sign or an anti-war sign such as "Support our Troops–End the War."

I'm on the lookout for yards with signs for Hillary and Fallon, or for Obama and Boswell, but I haven't seen any of those yet. Please put up a comment if you've seen either of those combinations anywhere in the district.

It has to be good for the challenger that so many people driving around are getting the impression that Obama supporters also lean toward Fallon. That's certainly true for many people I know who caucused for Obama.

I got an e-mail from Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign today touting another union endorsement:

                                                                                                              CONTACT: Betsy Shelton  

May 6, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                                                               515-238-3356

Iowa Steelworkers Endorse Congressman Boswell

Des Moines, IA – The United Steelworkers (USW) Iowa District 11 announced their endorsement of Congressman Leonard Boswell today.  “I am honored to receive the support of the United Steelworkers in Iowa,” said Congressman Boswell.  “I will continue my fight to improve the lives of working families across the state of Iowa.”

“Congressman Boswell has long been a friend of the United Steelworkers in Iowa.  With his seniority, it is important to have continuity and leadership representing Iowans,” said Randy Boulton, sub-director of USW District 11.  “The working families of USW wholeheartedly endorse Congressman Boswell.”

The United Steelworkers Iowa District 11 represents 8,000 members across the state of Iowa.

It’s not clear how many steelworkers in Iowa live in the third district.

I have to laugh every time the Boswell campaign brags about his seniority. As I wrote earlier this year,

Several campaign communications from Boswell have touted his ranking by Knowlegis as the 135th most powerful member of the U.S. House. They point out that this makes Boswell “more powerful than nearly 70 percent” of the members of Congress.

To put this in perspective, I looked up the whole class of 1996 as ranked by Knowlegis. Of the 47 House representatives first elected in that year who still serve, 31 were Democrats. Boswell ranks exactly in the middle of that group; 15 House Democrats first elected in 1996 are more powerful than he is, according to Knowlegis, and 15 are less powerful.

Digging further into the Knowlegis rankings, I found that 15 House Democrats first elected in 1998 are more powerful than Boswell, seven House Democrats first elected in 2000 are more powerful than Boswell, eight House Democrats first elected in 2002 are more powerful than Boswell (including Rahm Emanuel and Chris Van Hollen), eight House Democrats first elected in 2004 are more powerful than Boswell, and three House Democrats first elected in 2006 are more powerful than Boswell.

I don’t mean to discount Boswell’s efforts on behalf of his constituents. But let’s not kid ourselves–it’s not as if Fallon is challenging the Ways and Means Committee chairman, whose level of influence in Congress could not be matched for many years.

Moreover, continuity in terms of Boswell’s voting habits is exactly what I don’t want from my representative. His “progressive score,” as calculated by Progressive Punch, leaves a lot to be desired.