OK, this is starting to lean me toward Culver.

First South Dakota now Mississippi.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=543779&mesg_id=543779

I know Blouin says he won't change any existing abortion laws in IA & I would like to believe that we aren't as regressive as SD and MS but.....makes me wonder if it's worth the risk.

I'm not too crazy about some issues with the Culver/Judge ticket. Like Chet's death penalty stance or Patty's connections to the corporate ag world etc. But this trend to return us to the middle of last century is scary (understatement of the day).

I asked a Blouin staffer yesterday what Blouin would do if the legislature placed before him a bill similar to the one in South Dakota. Without hesitation I was told that he would veto it.

I asked what Blouin would do if the legislature handed him a bill which would require taxpayer dollars be used to fund abortions. Again, without hesitation I was told he would veto it.

Now... because I like to do such things... I asked what Blouin would do if the legislature handed him a bill which stated that private insurance could elect to fund abortion. I was once again told, without hesitation, that he would veto it.

The thing is, private insurance (such as BC/BS) already are allowed to decide if they will or will not fund abortion. This tells me a couple of things 1) the staff I spoke with was an idiot for answering questions on an unknowledgable issue and, 2) Blouin has made it clear to his staff to inform the public that he will veto any/all abortion legislation.

Voting for Blouin then will have to come down to a matter of trust. Is Blouin moving away from the women's rights debate because he knows it is his weak issue or, as I've been told, because he doesn't want abortion to become a hot-button issue in an election where so much more is at stake? Do you trust him and his administration to fulfill promises after they are elected?

I have yet to meet a candidate that I can agree with 100%. The field being presented to us as democrats is an outstanding field covering a wide area of thoughts. Much like the democratic party. I would have no trouble supporting any of them.

How do you answer a question if you are Blouin on abortion or Culver on the death penalty? If no matter what your answer might be, it is twisted to fit twisted logic.

The most important question I would ask if I were to get is an answer is this. Why do you consider yourself a democrat? I ask this question knowing our party represents all the common people no matter what end of the political spectrum they find themselves in.

the death penalty. He has stated his position clearly each and every time asked. Can you say the same about Blouin and his anti-women position?

It's not just about what the candidates believe in, it's about whether or not we feel we can trust the candidates.

I can't trust Mike Blouin.

I'll vote for him over Jim Nussle, but that doesn't me I'll be happy with the decision I'll be faced with.

but his actions say differently in his former position in Des Moines. He also promised to create livable wage jobs and corporation retention and recruiting through his job as the IDED Director and then waived the wage requirement while giving our tax dollars to those corporations through the Iowa Values Fund.

So, he's lied about two of the things he's promised.....what is going to make him keep his word about women's reproductive health care rights?

We've been burned by our own before. Kinda hard to know.

But your statement that Blouin sees this as a hot-button issue matches what I heard from him. He seems to want to avoid falling into that trap and deal with jobs, healthcare, etc. instead.

But, I'm not too confident that he could defeat Nussle. It's going to take quite a grass roots campaign to do it. Especially since the Dem establishment (sadly) seems uninterested in his campaign.

you get other Democratic values to boot like health insurance.

by diggin up dirt and doing 'opposition research'.

or can i just assume yepsen is doing his best to do the foxnews dance?

Except maybe Fallon -- because he doesn't have either the connections or the money to undertake it. (Which is also why the press has seemed to forgotten Fallon, Mohamed, Weems.)

Not that the press noticed he was even in it.

I think Fallon is sitting back, letting the current controvosey boil up, and collecting more support. Smart I'd say. And really, other than his Nader support, what dirt does Ed Fallon have to be dug? :shrug:

Didn't Blouin's campaign JUST put out a piece about Culver's first job out of college working as a lobbyist for Ed Campbell? Didn't Blouin's campaign request that Culver give back a campaign contribution from a person who had gotten in legal trouble? But Culver should just prance along merrily when Blouin picks a woman who financially (and with her vote) supported republican candidates and the republican party of Iowa?

I have to agree with Matt Paul, Mike Blouin's campaign manager, who earlier in the week stated:

"People have to be accountable for their records, and what they did early in their careers is informative," Blouin campaign manager Matt Paul said.

Oh, but since he was 'digging up dirt' about Culver it's different? Please :eyes:

Remember, the first press releases that went out about this issue were from the Nussle campaign, thanking Blouin's new runningmate for her previous contributions to his campaign when he was running against Incumbent Democratic Congressman Dave Nagle . With that sort of stuff coming out THAT FAST from the opposing Party what else do they have up their sleeve?

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Why should we hold Culver responsible for his records and what he did earlier in his career, and not hold Blouin's ticket to the same standard.

It B.S. if you ask me.