There is little to say about the death by gun violence of Charlie Kirk. Too many U.S. citizens die of gun violence and the Congress can, and should do something to prevent more death and destruction. On the other hand, Republicans, including gubernatorial candidate Brad Sherman, find things to say,
In a Sept. 16, “Letter to the People of Iowa,” published at The Iowa Standard, Sherman wrote in response to the shooting, “…many are waking up to the uncomfortable reality that the United States of America has been and is engaged in a long ideological war that is threatening to break out into all-out chaos.”
I’m calling malarkey.
There will only be chaos for as long as conservatives like Sherman persist in framing our lives in society that way.
When I go to the grocer, the convenience store, the hair stylist, or the hardware store there is no war going on. People are trying to live their complicated lives. For war to exist, there have to be at least two sides, and I just don’t see it in the people among whom I live. We don’t need Republican agitators like Sherman. We are better without them.
Kirk is dead. We should pay appropriate respects. Put down your inflammatory words Mr. Sherman. Any ideological war, if there ever was one, is over.
Let’s get on with making Iowa a better place to live.
~ First published as a letter to the editor on Sept. 18, 2025 at Little Village Magazine
SNAP cuts: how will they impact eastern Iowa? How can our community respond?
Please join Fairness for Iowa for a Town Hall event that discusses how the $1 billion of cuts to SNAP in Iowa will impact our communities in eastern Iowa. These cuts are a direct result of the recent Trump tax bill that was voted for by all our federal representatives including Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Senator Joni Ernst, who prioritized tax cuts for billionaires over feeding hungry kids and community members.
At the event, attendees can hear from panelists across the local food system including Hai Huynh, Associate Director, Coralville Community Food Pantry, Sandra Komuhiimbo, Coralville Community Leader, and Nicki Ross, Executive Director, Table to Table. Learn more about local food insecurity issues and how our local food bank and pantry system is responding to the increased needs of our community as a result of the SNAP cuts.
Attendees will also have the opportunity to take further actions to push back on SNAP cuts at the federal and state level, and call out Congresswoman Miller-Meeks and Senator Joni Ernst for their votes and actions to not stand up for their constituents, and instead increase food insecurity in our communities.
Attendees are encouraged to bring a goods donation for the Coralville Food Pantry to the event. The greatest need is for:
baby food
diapers (adult and children, all sizes)
period products (tampons, menstrual cups, panty liners, etc.)
personal care products (toilet paper, shampoo, soap, etc.)
pet food (dog & cat)
Where: Meeting Room A, Coralville Public Library
When: Thursday Sept. 11, 5 until 6:30 p.m.
This is a chance to hear directly from community leaders and food security advocates about how this legislation could impact access to food for thousands of Iowans. Bring your questions, bring your voice, and bring a donation to help area food pantries.
How does a person win an election? By getting 50 percent of the votes cast plus one. Some say there is more to it than that, but in the end, a candidate has to track his/her votes before the election, make sure there are enough of them, and then turn out those votes before or on election day. In politics there is nothing more elemental than this.
Last Thursday, while debating one of two resolutions (see below), a friend stood and addressed the county Democratic Central Committee, saying instead of this debate, we should spend more of our time working to win elections. The debate we engaged in did not win elections and took time away from that, he asserted.
It is ironic that when State Senator Janice Weiner arrived, she was praised by the committee for her leadership in winning two special elections to the state senate this year. One of those elections gained national attention. A number of people in our county helped win those elections yet Senator Weiner’s leadership contributed undeniably. While we may debate issues, she was busy winning elections.
The main reason I stayed until the end of the meeting was to hear the debate and vote on the two resolutions.
During the first presidential election after my wedding, I attended the Iowa Caucus where I was elected to the county convention as a George McGovern delegate on the platform committee. At caucus we had a discussion of political issues and made some decisions about what should and should not be on the county platform. At the county convention some of the decisions we made were overturned. I noted some delegates came to the county convention with the explicit intent to reintroduce platform planks that were voted down at the precinct. My initial experience with the county Democratic Party was soured by this experience.
In my political work in this county, I never again joined the platform committee. Most years, I don’t even read the platform. I’m not sure it is even necessary. At the same time, I see the two issues in the proposed resolutions are important and relevant to what we do as Democrats. The DEI resolution is a result of the impact of the president’s policy on the University of Iowa, which is a major regional employer. U.S. support for the Israeli government during the Hamas-Israel War was clearly divisive among Democratic voters and likely contributed to Democratic voter suppression in the 2024 general election. Talking about these two issues as a central committee won’t change the world, yet it moves the group toward alignment in our politics. Having clear positions on DEI and the Palestinian genocide is important to winning elections. After taking time to amend the language, these two resolutions were approved by the body.
Iowa Democrats stand at a distance from winning statewide elections. First, we have to know who we are. This debate helped. As one speaker said during the debate, if we are not going to stand for our values now, then when? Here is the result of our debate:
Johnson County Democrats Statement in Support of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI):
The Johnson County Democrats support diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in all walks of life and as policy at the public universities of our amazing state to help foster an open and welcoming environment for all people.
We condemn in the strongest sense President Trump’s bigoted attacks on DEI policies, diversity in our state and country, and Governor Kim Reynolds’ blatant waste of Iowa taxpayers’ resources and money by having state Attorney General Bird investigate a victimless incident at a time when Iowans are struggling with rising cancer rates, undrinkable water, and untenable increases in the cost of living.
The “Freedom to Flourish” in our great state is a freedom ALL people should enjoy regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, creed, or sexual orientation. We stand for an Iowa for ALL people and ALL Iowans.
“Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”
Resolution for an Embargo on Military Aid and Weapons Transfers to Israel
RESOLVED, That the Johnson Country Democrats support an immediate embargo on all military aid, weapons shipments and military logistical support to the Israeli government; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the embargo on military aid, weapons shipments and logistical support continue until Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B’tselem certify that the Israeli government is no longer engaged in apartheid rule.
There is a lot of chatter in the national news media about the price of electricity. We are apparently in a war with China over dominance in artificial intelligence, which requires a lot of electricity. National Public Radio reported, “Electricity prices are climbing more than twice as fast as inflation.” We don’t hear that so much here in Iowa except on national media. Why? According to Bill McKibben, “The average Iowan will spend 39% less on electricity than the average American because it produces 57 percent of its electricity from the wind, the second-biggest wind state in the country.” If you throw solar arrays, and other renewable energy into the mix, Iowa’s total share of renewables is 64 percent.
Spoiled as I am by normally low electricity rates, when last month’s electric bill arrived it was 51 percent higher than the same period last year. What the heck? Although the total amount of the bill was comparatively low — typical for Iowa — I had to look at it.
The price per kWh of electricity from our electric cooperative has been stable and predictable. It wasn’t a rate change that caused our increase. Our monthly usage increased from 429 kWh to 745 kWh. The average American household usage is much higher than that. The reason for higher costs was this increased usage.
What happened? The average temperature increased by four degrees year over year. We likely ran the air conditioner more because of it. It was also oppressively hot this July, which meant spending more time indoors and using more electricity with the washer, dryer, stove and our electronic devices. We also had a millennial house guest for an extended stay. They did online streaming from here with a multitude of electric devices which sucked more juice. In sum, the increase was explainable.
Why are people concerned about increasing electricity costs? Donald J. Trump is president. He does not seem well educated about electricity.
On Trump’s first day in office he declared an “energy emergency” for made up reasons. The unstated reason is he extorted oil, gas and coal companies. “Candidate Trump literally told the fossil fuel industry they could have anything they want if they gave massive contributions to his campaign, and then they did,” according to McKibben. Trump’s payback for the bribe was to hobble the renewable energy industry.
The Trump administration immediately began to do absolutely everything in its power to stop this trend (to develop more sun, wind, and batteries) and replace it with old-fashioned energy—gas, and coal. They have rescinded environmental regulations trying to control fossil fuel pollution, ended sun and wind projects on federal land, cancelled wind projects wherever they could, ended the IRA tax credits for clean energy construction and instead added subsidies for the coal industry. Again—short of tasking Elon Musk to erect a large space-based shield to blot out the sun, they’ve done literally everything possible to derail the transition to cheap clean energy. (Trump is shockingly dumb about (electric) energy, Bill McKibben on Substack).
More than ninety percent of new electric generation around the world last year came from clean energy. This was not because everyone in the energy business had “gone woke,” McKibben wrote. Texas, arguably the most un-woke place in the U.S., installed more renewable capacity than any other state last year. It was because you could do it cheaply and quickly—we live on a planet where the cheapest way to make power is to point a sheet of glass at the sun.
I don’t know what happened to Republicans. Senator Chuck Grassley used to be one of the big supporters of wind energy in Iowa because of the way wind turbine arrays meshed with farm operations, giving a farmer another revenue stream.
Under Trump we have taken a step backward and let China, Europe, and literally everyone else take the lead in developing the electricity of the future which taps power directly from the sun.
We can and must do better than this as we consider our energy future.
If I had a nickel for every time someone said today’s Democrats need to get in the game, I’d be rich. The trouble is what do Democrats do differently to overcome the Republican advantage in Iowa?
Democrat Catelin Drey is the case that conventional Iowa political organizing can be effective. On Wednesday, after her 4,208-3,211 victory in Iowa State Senate District 1, that Trump won in 2024 by 11.5 percent, she enumerated what worked for her in an interview with Laura Belin and Zachary Oren Smith. In descending order, she said door-to-door contact, telephone contact, and person to person contact within their existing social networks helped identify her voters and get them to the polls. This is so old school, I remember my father doing it during the 1960 Kennedy campaign.
The special election environment helped. Governor Reynolds set the date for the special election to replace deceased state senator Rocky De Witt on June 30 for Aug. 26, 57 days later. The short duration meant there was no time to wait for anything. The campaign ignited with energy. Volunteers, including multiple state senators and representatives, rallied immediately to help. Importantly, volunteers arrived from all over the state, contributing to knocking some 17,000 doors during the campaign, Drey said. She had plenty of volunteer help. Money wasn’t a problem either, enough so that Republican Party of Iowa chair Jeff Kaufmann complained about it.
Things might be different in a general election when folks can’t travel to the west side of the state because local races depend on their work at home. I expect Kaufmann will add this seat to his target list when it is up again next year. Drey seemed quite talented during the interview. Maybe she can pull off a 2026 re-election in a Trump district without all the statewide help. I hope so. Well done Catelin Drew!
I’m from Iowa so I am used to working hard for a candidate and then losing the election. I can think of some things Democrats need to change to turn the Republican advantage around.
Some history. When the worm started to turn on Republicans after the U.S. Supreme Court gave the 2000 election to George W. Bush, Democrats slowly began to change. When Bush won re-election in 2004, it was game on. In Iowa, we came back in 2006 by electing Democrat Chet Culver as governor and Dave Loebsack defeated long time Republican house member Jim Leach. The 2008 Iowa Democratic Caucuses had the most interest and biggest attendance I’ve seen in 32 years living here. As we all know, and may be weary of hearing, Barack Obama won Iowa and the nation in 2008. In 2012, Obama’s margins deteriorated yet he won Iowa again. In retrospect, 2008 was the high water mark of Democratic political activism in Iowa. Loebsack got elected to seven terms, but Culver turned out to be a one-term wonder and we haven’t had a Democratic governor since.
I love memories of the 2006-2008 campaigns but the electorate has changed. I would argue it changes at least every presidential cycle. Trump successively grew his vote count in Democratic Johnson County, Iowa during each of his three elections here. Recognizing such demographic changes is the first thing Democrats must change. Nothing stays the same. We should be like Catelin Drew and talk to everyone possible.
Marc Elias of Democracy Docket did Iowa Democrats no favors when he prosecuted Rita Hart’s 2020 six-vote house race loss in the Congress. When the Iowa Secretary of State certified the election, Hart should have accepted it, even though the path to appeal was there. Given the political climate at the time, the case was dead on arrival. NBC News reported, “Republicans sought to cast her litigation as Democratic hypocrisy for trying to undo a state certification of an election after Democrats criticized 138 Republicans for objecting to the Electoral College count on Jan. 6.” The place for Democrats to win elections is in voter contacts, not in courtrooms, or in the U.S. House.
Finally, Democrats should talk in terms of the voter’s interests. For Catelin Drew, this came naturally. Because childcare was an issue for her personally, it lent credibility in conversations where childcare was the voter’s concern. We can set aside all the verbiage about the whys and wherefores of needing childcare, like Rita Hart raised in an op-ed in the Solon Economist. Candidates seem better off sharing their authentic selves and empathizing with voters as best they can.
I think we need a better name for it than grassroots politics. The electorate has changed and is changing. Democrats need to find voters where they live: on the grass, on the internet, at work, at the grocer, and at the gym. We have done it before and we should get back to it. We need a change and that could be the change we need.
When I visited the Iowa legislature, one of the people I sought was Rep. Chuck Isenhart from Dubuque. Almost every bill regarding conservation, climate change, renewable energy, and water quality involved him in some way. We were sad to see him lose his last election. Since then, Isenhart has been staying active including writing about environmental issues on Substack.
Why would our national legislators back away from clean energy? Isenhart has some thoughts.
“Just because our gardens are growing cucumbers doesn’t mean we have to make pickles,” Isenhart wrote. “Backing away from clean energy while continuing to subsidize fossil fuels and mandate biofuels puts us in a pickle, making even the wildest dreams come true for those who advocate for an “all-of-the-above” energy future (meaning ‘don’t leave fossil fuels behind’).”
In an Aug. 18 post, Isenhart outlines the damage done to renewable energy programs by Republicans. He starts with his personal story of installing solar panels on his roof and what a good deal it was for him, the utility company, and the environment. The story arrives here:
So – good for consumers, good for business, good for workers, good for the environment. Win-win-win-win. Thus, good for government to keep promoting, no?
Ahhhhh, no. Iowa’s Congressional delegation voted unanimously to unravel most of the federal government’s support for clean energy. Your chance to use the incentive I did is fast running out.
We may know how bad Republicans are with advances in renewable energy and the environment. Isenhart lays it out with specifics. Read his entire post here.
Detail of the Centennial Building at 402 Iowa Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa. Photo Credit – The Daily Iowan.
The decision to close the Iowa Historical Society Research Center in Iowa City has been made. On Saturday, Aug. 23, I participated in a rally to reverse the decision in a packed room at the Iowa City Public Library. The main ask from the event organizers and from State Representative Adam Zabner, who represents the district where the building is located, was to sign the online petition to reverse the decision. Click here to sign the petition. There was more.
My takeaway is the decision to close the facility is pure amateurism. Archaeologist and historic preservationist Kathy Gourley questioned whether the dire financial picture the state reported is true. She presented information about negotiations with the state legislature last session to secure an additional $1 million in funding for the center. While the legislature only provided a half million, that is not chump change at the historical society. The main thrust of this decision was that “your history” doesn’t matter.
Jonathan Buffalo, historian and director of the Meskwaki Historical Preservation Department told friends, relatives and neighbors about the proposed closure. They replied, “What about our stuff?” The Meskwaki house a collection of early photographs at the Research Center. We might all ask the same question. Communication about the closure was a surprise to almost everyone who read or heard the news. There appears to be only the vaguest of plans for the move. A lack of transparency runs throughout.
Here’s the rub. The state archivist is not following professional procedures for closing a facility like this. Donors gave consideration to what items they may have donated to the State Historical Society. Part of the deal was the artifacts would be cared for in perpetuity. Instead of assuring the public that any change would meet this obligation, it’s been like, “Let’s go to Walmart and get us some plastic bags to haul what we don’t like to the landfill.” It is amateur hour.
Rebecca Conard, native Iowan and historian at Middle Tennessee University outlined some of those professional procedures during the rally. Things like looking at the Iowa collections as a whole and then making a transparent, public decision on what to do with items that are less relevant today than they were when donated.
What about our stuff? Will it go to a warehouse? Will it be discarded? There have been no good answers. If the state had considered the public impact of closing the Iowa City Research Center, they would have researched and provided some of the answers when they announced the change. They apparently didn’t. This made a difference that, in part, created the social anxiety on display at the Iowa City Public Library on Saturday.
Valued collections live in that building today. What will happen to archives of Meskwaki photographs, the Iowa Musicians Project, pioneer diaries, manuscripts, and the rest of the materials? Let’s hope they are not rendered into oblivion either by tucking them away on a shelf in a Des Moines warehouse or by discarding.
To learn more, read Trish Nelson’s backgrounder on the issue here.
Sign the online petition to reverse the decision to close the Iowa Historical Society Research Center at the Centennial Building click here.
The Iowa primary for the 2026 general election is on June 2, 2026. At the end of summer the year before the primary there is plenty of action among both Democrats and Republicans. This post is a recap of where I find myself landing in three races a long distance from the finish line.
The governor announced she is not running again, which leaves an open race. Multiple Republicans put themselves forward for governor. I notice superficial aspects of their action yet am more interested in what Democrats are doing. Brianne Pfannenstiel of the Des Moines Register is covering the governor’s race. I was able to get through the Gannett paywall to read her latest here. Rob Sand and Julie Stauch are running as Democrats and there is a no-party candidate, Sondra Wilson. I was an active participant in the 2006 election that made Democrat Chet Culver our governor. I don’t see that type of enthusiasm this summer. In particular, Sand seems a bit droll. The filing deadline for state and federal offices is March 13, 2026. A lot can happen between now and then.
The race for U.S. Senator from Iowa is where most of my interest lies. At the end of June I donated $10 each to the three then announced candidates, Nathan Sage, Zach Wahls, and J.D. Scholten. There are at least three more kicking tires on a run. That’s too many $10 dollar donations to make another.
While a lot can happen before the filing deadline, I believe Sage, Wahls and Scholten comprise the field. Of them I like J.D. Scholten best because of his experience of running against Steve King in Iowa’s fourth congressional district. In addition, he has been prominent in national news media, appearing on nationwide broadcast outlets and newspapers. Just last week he spoke at Netroots Nation. Likewise, he has the attention of Iowa-based political reporters. His ability to attract media interest in things like his recent farm policy statement is important in the primary because Iowa Democrats do watch national news reporting and read the newspaper. His strength in person-to-person campaigning honed during his race with Steve King, combined with media attention makes him a strong contender to beat the Republican nominee whether or not it is Joni Ernst.
I don’t know Nathan Sage, and haven’t heard him speak in person or viewed a media recording. I will do that eventually. He has been making rounds of state Democratic gatherings and keeps an aggressive schedule. I don’t rule him out at this point.
I’m not dismissing Zach Wahls either. His public campaign seems focused on messaging in a way to redefine who we are as Iowans, defining values we hold in common. Iowa needs more of that. Whether that is a path to winning the general election is unclear in August 2025.
So I lean Scholten in the U.S. Senate race.
I have no opinion about congressional races except for in the first district where I live. I attended the county Democratic Central Committee meeting last Thursday where we heard from three campaigns for congress. This race boils down to whether we accept Christina Bohannan’s argument that she lost by 799 votes in 2024, and she knows how to close the gap and win the third time around. She noted in her remarks early polling has her at a 4-point advantage over Mariannette Miller-Meeks.
I don’t know if I buy that argument. At the same time, she is the only candidate with several seasoned staff members from three general election campaigns. When I think of the district, I know many of those Democrats well. They lean more conservative than Johnson County where I live. Given what is known about Bohannan, they seem unlikely to take a chance on a newcomer when they have heard or met Bohannan during the last three campaigns. I didn’t hear anything from the other campaigns to break the attention I pay to Bohannan.
There are a lot of other important races this cycle. For me, though, the focus is on these three.
UPDATE: Since posting this, Jackie Norris and Josh Turek announced for U.S. Senate. I will do an update of that race in a new post once the other person kicking tires on a run makes a decision.
U.S. Capitol. Photo by Ramaz Bluashvili on Pexels.com
While I was sleeping early Friday morning, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the rescission bill which claws back funds approved by Congress in a bipartisan process. Republicans rescinded parts of previous spending agreements they didn’t like, which were needed at the time to pass the bill. They have a thin majority, so can do many things they want. Notably, funds for USAID and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have been cut in the rescission bill. It now heads to the president’s desk for signature.
The rescission bill followed the widely unpopular reconciliation bill which also cuts federal programs while increasing the national debt. The president signed the reconciliation bill on July 4.
I need to stop and take a deep breath.
Like many, I contacted my federal representatives multiple times during the weeks the bills were being considered. They all (Chuck Grassley, Joni Ernst, and Mariannette Miller-Meeks) voted for both the reconciliation and the rescission. This week I received replies from Miller-Meeks and Ernst, explaining their vote on the reconciliation. Grassley posted a press release on his website. There are some nuances, but all of them gave the main reason for voting for it as extending the 2017 tax cuts.
Let’s start with Miller-Meeks. This was the crux of her email to me: “I was proud to support H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which permanently extended the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Without this bill, the average Iowan would have seen an increase of $2,063 in the annual tax bill. I was proud to work with my colleagues to prevent this from happening.” I don’t know this “average Iowan,” of whom she speaks. I didn’t see our household taxes change because of the 2017 tax cut. I paid zero taxes for 2024, so there are no taxes to cut going forward. Wealthy Iowans will do better. In each of my emails to the congresswoman I pointed out that we cannot afford to borrow more money for tax cuts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, that’s one of the main features of the bill, the U.S. will incur trillions of dollars in additional debt.
Someone in Senator Ernst’s office apparently read my emails opposing the bill. The response addressed Medicaid, as did I. The core message was similar to Miller-Meeks: “On July 1, 2025, I joined the entire Iowa delegation in voting to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), which the President signed into law on July 4, 2025. In addition to preventing the largest tax increase in history for our families, farmers, and small businesses, the bill strengthens the integrity of Medicaid and prioritizes those who truly need help by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.” Ernst did not address the borrowing needed to cover the loss of tax revenue for the U.S. Treasury.
Senator Grassley was singing the same tune in his July 1 press release, “Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) today voted to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to protect Iowans from being hit with the largest tax increase in history and provide historic investments in border security and law enforcement.”
If we think logic and reason apply to these votes, they don’t. They are simply Republicans doing Republican things with their audacity increasing with each day the Congress is in session. The direction hasn’t changed much since the Reagan administration, except for Republicans doing all this with more transparency. This one was really in our face. They rely on the American electorate being asleep at the wheel and paying their law-making only a minimum of attention. “Tax cut? Good,” the unwitting might say.
I haven’t come to understand the meaning of these bills, other than they go against the grain of good governance and Republicans don’ t care. What I do understand is Miller-Meeks and Ernst are up for re-election and if we care about our country, we should be contributing in some way to replacing them with Democrats.
Johnson County Democrats at the 2022 Solon Beef Days parade.
On Monday, June 16, Christina Bohannan announced her third run to become the U.S. representative from Iowa’s First Congressional District. Let’s go!
Campaign 3.0 puts her way ahead in the primary race with two other Democrats. The fact she lost the 2024 general election by 799 votes is an indication she could win in 2026 regardless of which Republican advances from their primary.
The midterm election has been a challenge for Democratic voter turnout, yet in a time when opposition is growing to the Republicans in power, we might pull this one off. The recent No Kings rallies are an indication voters are increasingly engaged in our politics. I believe voters will turn out for Bohannan.
Here is the press release I received by email this morning:
Christina Bohannan announces campaign for Iowa’s First Congressional District
Bohannan: “It’s time someone put Iowa first”
Iowa City, IA – Today, Christina Bohannan announced her campaign for Iowa’s 1st Congressional District. Bohannan nearly defeated Mariannette Miller-Meeks in 2024 – and outworked, outraised, and outmatched her, outperforming the presidential margin more than any other Democratic challenger in a targeted race in the country. It was the most razor-thin margin of any Republican re-election of the 2024 cycle. This contest begins right where it ended – the biggest toss-up in the country.
Christina Bohannan said, “Mariannette Miller-Meeks has had three terms in Congress – three chances to do right by the people of Iowa. Instead, she has taken over $4 million from corporate special interests and done nothing but vote their way. And she has put partisan politics over Iowans again and again. From cutting Medicaid, to siding with DOGE’s devastating cuts to Social Security, to enabling unelected, unaccountable billionaires like Elon Musk – Miller-Meeks has forgotten about us. It’s time someone put Iowa first.”
Miller-Meeks must explain why she keeps putting Washington special interests first. In just the first six months of her current term, she has:
Cast the deciding vote for the extreme plan that will gut Medicaid and make health care unaffordable for more than 100,000 Iowans to pay for a massive tax giveaway to her billionaire donors;
Repeatedlyvoted for the cost-increasing tariffs that will force Iowa families to pay $4,400 more in higher costs per year while 700,000 Americans jobs are lost, and costs are increased for farmers, small businesses, and manufacturers;
Joined Elon Musk’s DOGE efforts to cut Social Security, veterans healthcare, education, and law enforcement resources as a proud member of the DOGE Caucus.
It’s time for Christina Bohannan.
Christina grew up in a mobile home, in a rural town of 700 people. When Christina was in high school, her dad got sick with emphysema, and his health insurance was cancelled, forcing her family to choose between paying for his medicine and paying for everything else. She worked her way through school by picking fruit, cleaning trailers, and waiting tables, becoming the first in her family to go to college. After working as an engineer and then teaching at the University of Iowa College of Law for two decades, she took on politics as usual and defeated a 20-year incumbent to represent District 85 in the Iowa House of Representatives. Now, Christina is running for Congress because she believes we need a government that works for the people, not political parties and Washington special interests.
Journey Home 
You must be logged in to post a comment.