Gubernatorial Candidates

I have a pretty good idea of who supports who so far (I think), but just wanted to see how DU feels about our nominees thus far.

to me he is just Vander Plaats lite. Anti-choice, against steam cell research, pro-Corporatacracy, both are against No Child Left Behind (which is a good thing). What other democratic values does Blouin hold?

He may be in state government at this moment. Hey, a secret ballot is sacred in this country, at least it was once.

Blouin. Right now I'm going back and forth between Judge and Culver.

by Rehka Basu. Says something I have been hearing over and over - "gee I like Fallon's positions, but can he win". Well I am fool enough to think that if his positions are good, then he can win.

Judge is a card carrying member of the DLC - so I'm not interested in someone like her. I was a delegate to the Dubuque County Dem convention in 1972 (if memory serves) and met Mike Blouin there - he sat in front of me and struck me as a real blowhard then - a half-soused pain-in-the-ass loudmouth. I can recall wondering, "who is this jerk?". Today he appears to be Repub lite - I agree with pstans above on that one. Don't know much about Culver and would be open to him at this point, although I'm not too hot on second generation kids getting an easy ride on the basis of a parent's accomplishments - I've observed that such folks sometimes tend to be lightweights. I saw Mohammed waving a sign on a street corner in Waterloo and went home and read his positions on his web site - I wasn't impressed - it was simplistic - almost goofy, IMO.

Fallon would be my choice if I had to vote today. I could enthusiastically get behind a guy like Fallon.

If he used his father's name to get elected in 1998 then he used his work on voting rights and eliminating the bulky paperwork of corporate filings to get re-elected in 2002 - John Culver didn't do that for him (and if you recall he had to fight Tom Vilsack to get matching funds for HAVA in our state - Vilsack can find hundreds of millions for his and Blouin's pet Values Fund but can't find less than ten million to ensure all Iowa voters are allowed their right to vote). He's earned his position in the Party. (That's just mho - and yes, I'm supporting Culver in this race).

I agree that Fallon looks good, but Fallon has cut himself off at the knees when it comes to funds to run a state-wide race against a monster candidate like Jim Nussle. How many votes will Fallon get in Western Iowa off of low-dollar grass-roots? He'll need to buy ad time and that's not going to be cheap. Nussle will be filing over $2,000,000 in January with $400,000 left over from his Congressional race. Fallon hasn't raised 1/5 of that and he has a five-way primary race to run through June. I wish Fallon would stay in his seat and be there to work with the next Democrat Governor.

I agree that money should not be the big factor in elections that it is, but until we get someone in office that can change the way things are done we are stuck playing the game (get a progressive Dem in the Governor's seat - get a progressive Dem statehouse - change Iowa election laws - that's the only way to go).

Not sure if you should just assume that Nussle will be winning the Republican nod.

As for Fallon's money stance. He is a Democrat and if he wins the primaries, the Democratic party will make sure that Fallon has the money and ad time to get elected.

I'd love to run against Vander Plaats. He makes it easy to show the clear difference between sane and reasonable Liberals and Right-Wing Wackos (unlike Nussle who feigns being a Moderate yet votes right right right). But can his Western Iowa strength beat Nussle's slime-ball tactics and TONS of cash?

Also, is Fallon planning on changing his NO PAC MONEY position and only LOW DOLLAR contributions position after the primary? He won't take money from the Party, he won't take money from unions, he won't take money from issue PACs, where is the money going to magically appear from? I like Fallon and his positions and his fire, but I don't like his stance on contributions and think it will hinder his chances of winning. I tell you what, though, if he wins the primary I will be giving him all the money he will be willing to take from me, which will equal 1/10th of what any other candidate would ask from me. (Okay, on that I'm being sarcastic - it's more like 1/4th). There aren't enough Democrats in Iowa to give Fallon the low dollar contributions he needs to go up against Nussle or Vander Plaats. I'm all for grass-roots, but you have to have money for state-wide lit drops, door knocking sheets, staff, office space, etc.

I agree with your points on Vilsack. I'm no fan of his and view him as a sellout.

As to Culver, I suspect he'd be teaching school somewhere were it not for his father. And I doubt that his re-election had anything to do with his work on voting rights and corporate paperwork reform. Ask 1000 people to list Culver's accomplishments as Sec of State and you might find 2 or 3 who have the slightest clue why the office even exists, let alone what Mr. Culver has accomplished. Nevertheless, I'm of the opinion that the last thing we need right now is a political aristocracy where the reins of power are handed from one generation to the next. Maybe this kid is OK, but the way things are going, I'm of the mind that a powerful political father should almost disqualify one for leadership at this level - unless the child earns it by building a long and proven record of working in the trenches and demonstrating a burning passion to set things right. In Culver I see a young guy who wants to get a better job - not much more. I see no outrage, no alarm, no sense of urgency, no anger, and no passion. I see a nice, pleasant looking kid who grew up in a very privileged family - one who probably likes things pretty much the way they are. He's married to a lawyer, the daughter of a judge, who is also from privilege. Sorry - not interested. I believe that our times call for a different type of leadership - perhaps someone who has suffered - someone who has been poor, disadvantaged, or oppressed. I see nothing in Culver that leads me to believe he understands, on a personal level, what it means to be at the mercy of others.

I was also struck by comments on his web-site regarding electronic voting. It came across as simplistic, (almost patronizingly so) and greatly minimized the devastating threat posed by allowing proprietary software created by neocon zealots to control our elections. Or perhaps it reflected a naivete that one in his position shouldn't possess. Maybe he has beefed up his views since those comments were posted.

I thought his comments about health care were a joke: "...We also believe in expanding health care coverage for kids from working families who can’t afford it...". What a load of crap! Provide health care for kids, but not their caretakers and the breadwinners who they depend upon for their very survival. More half-baked, mamsy-pamsy, weak, compromise that reflects a typical impersonal managerial approach that is lacking in drive, soul, and passion. It's about what I would expect from a kid who has known nothing but success and ease in life. A privileged background has the potential to be crippling in the sense that it can deprive one of the capacity to truly grasp the pain of others.

I found his comments about disabled voters to be patronizing and simplistic - reflecting a lack of life experience and maturity. Overall I found his words to be little more than regurgitated phrases that could have been lifted off any of a thousand Democratic campaign brochures - but with a twist. He seems to place a positive spin on things in a way that strikes me as almost Pollyannaish. This doesn't square with my view. If ever there was a time to be sounding the alarm - this is it.

Then I consider his age and I see a guy who just hasn't paid his dues. I've just about had it with privileged, self-serving, passionless Democrats thinking they can represent the views of the rest of us. And this guy has limited life-experience to boot. The more I read about Culver, the less I see him as worthy of this office. That being said, Nussle embodies absolutely everything I despise in a human being, and when I consider the magnitude of the evil he represents, I find that Culver strikes me as even more of a lightweight. It will take a powerful goodness to shove the likes of Jim Nussle back under his rock.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this. I believe this country is going down the tubes at breathtaking speed, and I have personally come to the conclusion that we're screwed unless we have an opposition party with guts, passion, and teeth. Culver doesn't appear to have any of the qualities I'm looking for - except one - he isn't a Republican. While that's good - it isn't enough. Furthermore, I have decided to stop playing "armchair" political strategist. I think that game has greatly contributed to the demise of our Democracy. If the man on the street would simply vote for the person who most closely shared his/her views, and displayed the most desired personal characteristics, instead of backing the one anointed by the media and the polls, maybe we wouldn't have compromised ourselves into this mess. I'm finished with this business of voting for 10th best because he might be able to attract enough republicans and moderates to win. Such thinking has enabled the right to move further and further to the extremes and get away with it. It has resulted in the Democratic party compromising itself into near collapse. I have decided to stop contributing to that decline, even if that means devastating Republican wins in the short term.

Debi, it's clear we both want the same outcome - we just disagree on the means to get there.

I hope that you will give Culver the chance to answer what questions you have of him and see if he has any more in him than what is on his web site.

Only note I would have about his politically powerful father, John Culver lost his seat to Chuck Grassley in 1980 - twenty-five years ago. That would put Chet Culver at about 15 when his dad was in office. That's a long time ago to bank on his name and record for votes (how many of our voters in Iowa are under the age of 25? How many have never heard of John Culver?). Also, Chet and the Governor are on opposite sides of the fence in this race and have been since the 2000 Caucuses. Vilsack has had the White House in his sites since he got elected in 1998 and Culver's work for Iowa's First in the Nation status and voting rights in 2000, 2002 and 2004 have gone against Vilsack's political aspirations. You don't bank on a political dynasty by pissing off the Governor - Culver did things right.

No matter what happens in the next six months - we'll be on the same team come November.

I had never heard of John Culver until someone brought him up here. I was 2 when Grassely took his seat. There are a lot of young people that respect Culver based on his record as Sec of State, who have no clue who John Culver is/was.

Just a point of reference here.

Just want to clarify my references to Culver's father. I didn't intend to imply that people were actually supporting or voting for Chet because of his father's influence. Like you say, many younger voters have never heard of John Culver. I'd go even further and say that very few have heard of Chet Culver unless it's in association with his recent bid for Gov. I've never met anyone who gave much thought to who they wanted for SOS. Secretaries of State are elected on the coattails of others and I don't think Chet's personal accomplishments had anything to do with his re-election or the fact that he's a candidate for Governor. I'll bet if you asked 100 people to name the Iowa Sec of State you'd be very lucky to get one who could even come up with the right name - let alone any inkling of his accomplishments. Most people don't give a rip about the Sec of State. It's essentially an invisible, bureaucratic job that has been of minimal import historically. There are many state employees and unelected board members who wield far more power, and have a much bigger impact on people's lives than the Sec of State. So I agree with you that John hasn't been much of a factor in the average voter's mind. Nor do I believe that Chet has been much of a factor. Few would even know who he is. What I'm saying is this:

1) My references to the father have to do with the potential impact of a powerful parent upon a child's world view. I just don't believe that the world view of a child who grows up in a privileged background is likely to be a good fit with those of us who had to make it without a parent to grease the skids for us. I don't think a young man who has had such an easy go of it has earned the right to run State government, and I believe the "privilege factor" is especially crucial when the middle class is under a withering attack and vanishing before our eyes.

2) I'm linking the powerful parent, and all the family connections that flow from that (like Bill Knapp) to Chet's ability to get on the ballot in the first place. If my kid decides she needs a cushy, well-paying job with minimal responsibility, there's no way she can waltz in and get on a statewide ballot for S.O.S. when she's 33. No way in hell! Were it not for John Culver, none of us would know Chet Culver existed, and with our country moving rapidly toward a culture of aristocracy, I'm inclined to want to stamp it out whether it's one of our guys, or one of theirs.

That's all I'm saying.

I've enjoyed the discussion here, and like Debi says, we'll all be pulling in the same direction in November! Nussle is a Bush clone who would be a complete disaster.

Hey believe me, I understand your position. I have lived through quite a bit of change in my own personal life. As a young child my family was pretty well off. I was spoiled and we were able to take vacations, travel, etc. As I grew older my father's job paid less, and then my parents got divorced. I went from spoiled to desperate pretty quickly from 12-16. During some periods of my teen years I stole food from the city gardens and from jobs to help supplement our groceries. When I was in my later teens I lived out of my car or with friends and their families because neither my mother nor my father could afford me and I didn't want to burden them. I haven't lived a privileged life by any means and sometimes I have a hard time respecting those that had life handed to them.

Culver's actions as Sec of State (regardless of how many people know about it) have been to the benefit of all Iowans. Chet's character, at least in regards to his fighting against a party establishment for his ideas (Vilsack) seems to be pretty good. Chet didn't pick the family he was born in to. He has done good things as he is able to, and I can't hold his family's success against him.

I guess my point is this: A person's past may influence their world view, I know mine has. However, we have to judge a person by their character and their actions.

can't be all bad! I definitely place that in the plus column for Culver. Despite all my misgivings, I think he'd be better than Vilsack has been.

Neither Culver nor Fallon seem to be to sympathetic to corporations 'plight' in Iowa. Under both of them I believe tax dollars would help Iowans, not big business.

Better watch out Culver, Fallon has gained some votes the past 2 days.