Tag: politics

SOLON— If not careful, I will get sucked into partisan politics again. It’s physics. The general lack of interest in partisan politics, combined with party work needing to be done, creates a vacuum that sucks all willing volunteers into the chambers of events.

There is the Democratic county convention (March 8), the district convention (April 26) and the state convention (June 21), to organize and attend. In our precinct, there were seven caucus goers, and we elected one of two central committee members. We all know how much work is involved in being on the central committee, and for most of us, we have been there and done that, resulting in a position remained unfilled. I agreed to be on the committee on committees, mainly interested in the work of preparing for the county convention. All other committee slots went unfilled. Par for the course among experienced caucus goers in our rural part of the county.

A big part of the work at the caucus is signing the nominating petitions. There were more than 20 of them from federal, state-wide and local candidates. Bruce Braley is running to replace U.S. Senator Tom Harkin, Dave Loebsack is running for re-election to a fifth term in the U.S. Congress without a primary opponent, Jack Hatch was the only Democratic candidate for governor with nominating petitions, and it seemed that all of the state-wide offices had candidates. At the local level, county attorney Janet Lyness had a nominating petition for re-election, and four supervisor candidates had thrown their hats into the ring: Mike Carberry, Lisa Green-Douglas, Gerry Kuhl and incumbent Janelle Rettig.

David Johnson of West Branch, who is running for state representative in House District 73, spoke to the caucus cluster of five precincts. I spoke on behalf of supervisor candidate Mike Carberry. We were the only two speakers for candidates.

This year there were only three resolutions, so the most painful part of the caucuses went quickly. I made a motion to accept all resolutions. It was seconded, but during the discussion someone asked that they all be read. What was on our minds was support for the locked out CWA workers at South Slope Cooperative Communications in North Liberty, setting a minimum Social Security benefit of $1,000 per month, and bringing electronic cigarettes under the same regulatory umbrella as tobacco products. What little discussion there was was useful and brief. My motion passed.

Because of the caucuses, the Iowa legislature was not in session. I ran into both my state senator and state representative by chance in the district before arriving at the caucus. Naturally I covered an issue with each of them. Dump trucking more than one issue during a chance meeting diminishes chances of anything being heard, so I picked carefully. I had an email response from my state representative before I went to bed. They are both people committed to making Iowa a better place to live, and I enjoy working with them, even though I don’t always agree with them.

When I arrived home, a buddy called me and said he had been elected to the Republican party’s county central committee. His resolution to repeal the Patriot Act was accepted without discussion. He indicated the dynamic was the governor’s supporters were trying to limit the influence of the Ron Paul wing of the party, presumably to get out of the pickle they found themselves in during the 2012 cycle, and to prevent a challenge to lieutenant governor Kim Reynolds at their state convention. He offered to collaborate on shaking up both parties’ establishment, and I made a note.

After our conversation I made a post on twitter about the second district Republican congressional candidates, and eventually identified there may be three Republican primary candidates for the seat, state representative Mark Lofgren, third time candidate Mariannette Miller-Meeks, and Some Dude Matthew Waldren.

What I failed to mention is among the mostly grey-haired caucus goers are a lot of long time friends. Getting a chance to socialize with them was the best part of the evening.

LAKE MACBRIDE— Unlike many in my cohort of grade school classmates, I stay in touch with my elected officials and have written them on important issues. Dave Loebsack is my U.S. Congressman, I like him, and it’s no secret. Loebsack receives his share of criticism, but I have stuck by him and will for three simple reasons: who he is not, who he is, and who he could be.

Dave Loebsack is not a Republican. His predecessor, Jim Leach was. I had a long constituent relationship with Rep. Leach. He was elected while I was in the military, and my first letter to him in 1980 was about disposal of radioactive nuclear waste during the nuclear freeze movement. Our views met on a lot of issues over the years. Two things turned me against Leach: his participation in the Kenneth Starr investigations during the Clinton administration, and his authorship of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed part of the Glass Steagall Act. Leach’s role as chairman of the House Banking Committee during Whitewater was the turning point, with repeal of Glass Steagall being the topper.

According to Bill Clinton, “in the House Banking Committee, Chairman Jim Leach… trumpeted every bogus charge against Hillary and me, alleging that we had made, not lost, money on Whitewater, had used Madison Guaranty funds for personal and political expenses, and had engineered David Hale’s SBA fraud. He promised ‘blockbuster’ revelations, but they never materialized.”

I thought it was a ridiculous waste of time that Leach participated in this political witch hunt, and told him so in a letter. By the time I got active in politics again, I felt Leach had to go, and thankfully wasn’t the only one.

Who is Dave Loebsack? His biography is readily available, but from the beginning of my relationship with him, he has been concerned, humble, appreciative and direct in his approach to me and to the political world. This passage from a March 25, 2005 email from Loebsack in response to my questions about raising money for the campaign and gaining support of the political establishment depicts what I mean:

“At the moment, I am quite honestly not sure that I can raise tons of money. However, I think my extensive contacts in the area, the state, and beyond give me a much better chance to do so than many past candidates. Therefore, I am trying even now to raise funds in this ‘exploratory’ stage. And I am not afraid to ask for help. Indeed, you may write me a check (to Loebsack Exploratory Committee) and I will deposit it in an account specifically set up for ‘testing the waters.’

I am sure I have not fully eased your mind on these matters, Paul, but I hope this is a good start.”

I don’t receive personal emails from Loebsack anymore, and I’m okay with that because I see him several times a year in a variety of settings. I have a type of accessibility to my congressman that is part and parcel of why we get involved in politics. As one out of 762,000 constituents, that is pretty good.

The third reason I like Dave Loebsack is the most important, what he could be. I don’t know how he got his initial committee assignments, but as far as I’m concerned, his membership on Armed Services and Education and the Workforce made the effort to elect him worth it.

Over the years, I haven’t agreed with all of Loebsack’s votes, especially on Armed Services. At the same time, ordinary citizens like me understand that we do not elect drones to the U.S. Congress, nor do we want to. It is precisely his outlook and process in the congress, combined with his committee assignments, that make him a strong legislator, one who will hopefully serve for many more years. As time goes by, Dave Loebsack will gain seniority on two committees that are critical to the future direction of our country. Committees whose work is important to the lives of everyday citizens where I live.

As we enter the 2014 election cycle, it’s time to stand up and get to work. I know what I’ll be doing— working to re-elect Dave Loebsack to the U.S. Congress.

LAKE MACBRIDE— Living in Iowa, I feel compelled to write about politics from time to time. It is an irresistible urge, that in many ways runs counter to preferred topics like local food, gardening, sustainability, and the like. In an effort to address this Iowa (and maybe New Hampshire) urge, here’s how things look from Big Grove Precinct, going into 2014.

For ten dollars, a person can get the voter registrations for a precinct from the county auditor. In my precinct, there are 1,305 registered voters. Of these, 499 are Democrats, 413 are No Preference, 391 are Republican, and two are coded “L” which I assume means libertarian. From 20 years of living here, and being very active in partisan politics, I know that during a general election, most people are willing split their ticket and pick who they feel is the best candidate for each position. I’ve found this to be true from the top of the ticket on down. No preference voters have become the key group to watch and work with, although not to the exclusion of others.

We moved to Big Grove in 1993 and during our first presidential election here in 1996, 1,105 people voted, with the breakout for president Clinton 599, Dole 377, Perot 105, Nader 10, Browne 1, and Hagelin 2. By 2012, there was more Republican support with these presidential results: total votes cast 1,123, Obama 555, Romney 551, Johnson 7, Litzel 1, and Stein 1.

Our county has election data available back to 1970, so if one figures out which previous elections are comparable, both turnout and the number of votes needed to win are relatively easy to determine. At the precinct level, party affiliation doesn’t lend itself very well to statistical analysis, since, as I mentioned, people are willing to split their ticket to vote for the person rather than the party.

The 2014 political schedule is as follows.

The first day of the second session of the 85th Iowa General Assembly is Monday, Jan. 13. I have been in touch with my state representative and state senator since New Year’s Day, and let them know my priorities. Now it’s up to them.

On Jan. 21 are the off-year precinct caucuses. Expect very light turnout of party activists on the Democratic side. The Republicans have made these events into a social time, so they may have more caucus-goers, but their attendance is expected to be light, like with the Democrats.

March 14 is the deadline for state and federal candidates to file for the June 3 primary. Already we know there will be Democratic primaries in the governor’s race, the county attorney and supervisor races, and probably some others. Since politics is a low personal priority this year, I won’t engage much until after the filing date. Even then, I’ll engage only enough to pick candidates in the primary.

State legislator per diem runs out on the 100th day of the session, April 22. Presumably the session will end on or about that time because legislators will want to work on the fall campaign.

After June 3, we’ll know who our candidates for the general election are, and soon thereafter we’ll also know how the Iowa Democratic Party will organize around them.

Summer is a slow time in politics, and candidates gain some visibility in parades, town festivals and events as they get out and press the flesh. Otherwise, those that aren’t known to voters work to get known.

Labor Day is the official kickoff of the fall election campaign.

In September and October, people evaluating whether to enter the 2016 presidential race will start coming to Iowa to help candidates raise money and visibility for the general election. I’ll begin talking to registered voters about the election, and start identifying them. In reviewing my list, there are a lot of new names, so it will take a while to get through them. I’ll also help out the county party as best I can.

The general election is on Tuesday, Nov. 4.

So there you have it, Iowa politics in under 700 words. In a turbulent world, taking time to figure out the timeline of political events helps organize for and maintain a level of sanity. I hope readers have found this useful. Now back to our regular programming.

LAKE MACBRIDE— A story that asks the question “who will be the next statesman after Nelson Mandela” is circulating on the Internet, and there is no credible answer. The conditions that raised Mandela to prominence on the world stage may have been unique. The better answer is that someone like him is no longer possible on our connected globe with more than seven billion people. None of the current generation of political, religious or institutional leaders is a candidate for an appellation like global statesman. Suffice it to say Mandela was unique to his time.

Some of the best people in our federal government are making their exits. The departures continued yesterday with the announcement that Rep. Tom Latham of Iowa’s third congressional district was calling it quits at the end of his term. Following on the heels of Senator Tom Harkin’s similar announcement, the two couldn’t be more different from each other. But there is a common thread: Washington has changed.

When President Barack Obama was inaugurated, there was hope for getting things done. In the 111th Congress, Democrats had increased their majorities in both legislative chambers, presumably setting the stage for positive accomplishments with a Democratic president. That hope was dashed almost immediately. Hope was most certainly gone when I visited Washington in September 2009.

I made the rounds to Senators Harkin and Grassley’s offices to advocate for ratification of the New START Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The former was perceived to be a slam dunk, and prospects for the latter were hopeful, and the reason for my engagement. In retrospect, ratification of the New START Treaty proved to be a Herculean struggle, and CTBT had no legitimate chances. I recall a conference call in 2010 with then Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Ellen Tauscher where when asked about next steps after ratification of New START, her answer was hesitant. She demurred, indicating we were at the end of the line even if she hadn’t said it in so many words.

One knows there are lobbyists in Washington. Being from Iowa, we are used to lobbyists occupying every square inch of the capitol from the bathrooms to the law library to committee meeting rooms. In 2009, the number of Washington lobbyists was between 12 and 13 thousand people, and they descended upon the capitol in droves each day. I saw them, they can’t be missed. At the same time, lobbyists with substantial ability to influence is a much lower number, in the dozens. When I was walking through the senate office buildings, the presence of lobbyists was akin to what goes on with termites when they find a moist chunk of wood to gain entry into the foundations of a house: our government has been hollowed out.

Yesterday’s Iowa political story was not the announcement that Tyler Olson (Democratic gubernatorial candidate) and Tom Latham are exiting politics. The story being missed is that Tom Harkin and Tom Latham are exiting politics, and what that says about what’s going on in our federal government.

We are in a time when “the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” In high school I knew that verse by W.B. Yeats referred to World War I, but this old poem resonates as clearly as a bell in today’s political environment. Begging the question, what rough beast is slouching toward Washington to be born?