Who is everyone supporting for the Iowa Democratic Governor nominee?

Or are you still undecided? Leaning toward someone? Leaning against someone else? Why?

I'm just curious and want to pick your brains. Thanks :hi:

But that is just a guess really... ha ha.

I am heading out the door but I will give you my answer tomorrow..

Hint: not blouin

I should know that, since you are male, you are capable of making my decisions for me (a female)and that you know what is best for me. Which is why I must take all of your manly wisdom to heart when I make my decision on who to support in the Governor's race!!! :rofl:

So I MUST be supporting Blouin - because a MAN told me to!!!! :rofl:

Okay, okay, okay..I'm 100% Culver (with a little nod to Fallon) :bounce:

If the vote were today, I think I'd lean toward Fallon, but could go Culver very easily. Fallon doesn't take PAC money (yet) and I like that. Culver is "electable", has a wealth of experience, and has a good running mate.

Didn't care for him much prior to McGuire... don't care for him at all now. I can't wrap my head around why something which would get me tossed off the County Central Committee is the same thing that supposedly makes her such a stand-out for Lt. Gov. :shrug:

I was firmly in Culver's camp until a few weeks ago. Now I have to say that I'm torn between Culver and Fallon.

Culver goodness:

=

1. Patty Judge. I know exactly where she stands and I know she's not afraid to get up and speak her mind.
   
2. He's a former educator and youth advocate. I like knowing that he has worked with young people in the past and I think he would be best able to bring more youth and energy into our party & be able to do more to keep young people here for college and afterward.
   
3. As Secretary of State, he pushed for verifiable paper trails. (Big issue with me.) When the county officials came out against legislation which would have mandated paper trails, he outed the counties which planned to purchase sole DRE systems as a part of HAVA.
   
4. Although not a world traveler, he has some experience traveling abroad.
   
5. He isn't a life-long politician, but he grew up within politics because of his father. In short, Chet understands how the game is played and can, hopefully, use that to his advantage.
   
6. His wife is an attorney and Chet did a stint as an investigator. This (again hopefully) means that he won't have to rely on many consultants in order to understand the ramifications of legislation pushed by the IA House & Senate.
   
7. He's not completely sold on the Iowa Values Fund.
   
8. He supports healthcare for every Iowan.
   
9. He wants to get a grip on higher education costs at our state universities.
   
10. Patty will bring a unique perspective and loads of expertise in the realm of agriculture, alternative fuels and environment. (We've got to do something to clear up our natural resources!)
    

Fallon's goodness:

1. He doesn't take corporate money (which might also be his downfall in this particular race)
   
2. He isn't (at all) sold on the Iowa Values Fund. In fact, he views it as a form of corporate welfare.
   
3. He will not be taking part in mud-slinging
   
4. He's socially liberal and fiscally conservative (like me!)
   
5. IRELAND!
   
6. He is "real" (grows his own garden, loves music, really seems to care about the groups the other two have ignored/taken for granted)
   
7. Supports full funding of K-12 education and accessible higher education
   
8. Supports our elderly being able to stay in their own homes (something I've noticed the other two -- Culver and Blouin -- have started saying after they Fallon talk of it)
   
9. Wants to help the plight of Iowa's single-parent families
   
10. He also believes healthcare is a right for every Iowan
    
11. Finally, he seems to have successfully broken through the "Democrats aren't Religious" belief out there.
    

There's more, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.

As a side note, I'm really trying to find things I like about Blouin. Let's face it, he might be our gubernatorial candidate after the primary. If given the choice between him or Nussle... well, it's Blouin hands down. I just wish I could find something really positive to believe about him other than "he's better than Nussle." You know?

Governor Vilsack. But am now inclined to Fallon.

His common sense appeals to the majority of Iowans, and I truly believe he is the candidate to go up against Nussle. Voters complain all the time that they can't tell the difference between the D and R candidates. You and I know that that is bullsh*t, but it's how the Independent voters perceives matters, and a factor that needs to be taken seriously. Ed Fallon provides the clearest contrast to Nussle, and is the kind of candidate I am proud to back, every time.

I am having a very difficult time finding anything much to like about Blouin. I see him as "republican lite" and should legislation come before him as Governor that would, with his signature, remove a women's right to choose I don't think he would hesitate for a moment to sign it. It's a good thing I don't think his nomination is a foregone conclusion, or I'd be pretty upset.

Culver is a good candidate, and a fine person. I have huge issues with his stance on the death penalty, however. I have heard directly from him that he will not push to have the death penalty in Iowa, but again, I wonder what he would do if his signature was all that was standing in the way?

And, by the way, Sal Mohammad is a good man with a kind heart :).

I was somewhat torn between Culver and Blouin as they are the two electable candidates ... the IBP bashing by Blouin is stupid, desparate, and seems juvenile. The more I have interacted with Culver the more confidence I have in him. His campaign is well run and he is well prepared to counter-attack every time he has been attacked. I like that trait after the recent Democrats who refuse to give back what is thrown at them.

I initially thought the selection of Patty was a mistake. The more I hear of it, it was a great choice.

We have four primary voters in our household, and four absentee ballots just arrived this AM. So four votes for Fallon are almost in the mail. We just need to do some more research on the Dem US House candidates. I'll search hear for another thread on that issue. But for gov... it's Fallon all the way.

I originally thought I'd have been in Fallon's camp, but I met Ed a few different times and felt really uncomfortable around him. He was very awkward to talk to one-on-one. Maybe that shouldn't matter, but it does.

Blouin ... no.

I like Sal Mohamed a lot, knowing him from the 2004 5th District Congressional primary. He's a good dude. As Maggie said, he's a good man with a kind heart. But he doesn't have a chance.

That leaves Culver. I like his optimism, his ideas on how to lure jobs to Iowa, and his social stances. I have also always felt pretty comfortable talking to him in person.

Plus, if the Culver-Judge tandem is elected, we could have the first Governor in the country who could also double as the Lt. Governor's bodyguard.

going in, but just read somewhere that he supported Nader in '04. Any truth there? If true, he just lost my vote.

After seeing what happened to the country, I realized the error of my ways.

Nothing against Ralph Nader, whose ideas I really like. I just can't sit back and vote for someone who doesn't have a chance and let neocons slip into office.

He has admitted it was a mistake now. Gore did win Iowa. No one could have foreseen the mess in Florida Fallon and an endorsement from a State Rep from Des Moines didn't have much effect. Fallon strongly supported Kerry in 2004. This should not be an issue in the race for Governor in 2006.

...for the reasons Cornfield listed, except the Ireland thing. :)
- cs

He was on IPTV last week and I liked what he had to say. His appearance seemed Gubernatorial enough to me. e]:-)

Re: Vilsack & Blouin!

:D

;-)

1) campaign finance
2) health care
3) end the values fund and corporate handouts
4) education

Could easily accept Culver. Will support Blouin, But see him as 'Republican-lite'. Lassie would be a better guv than Nussle.
Still don't understand why most of the legislators support Blouin. We've asked our local guy and still do not understand.

http://www.fallonforgovernor.net/welcome/index.asp

State Representative and gubernatorial candidate Ed Fallon (D-Des Moines) today sent a letter to Mary Lawyer, director of the Iowa Department of Economic Development. The letter was his fourth request for accurate information concerning the successes and failures of the $50 million annual program. The full text of the letter follows this release.

“If we are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in public money, then it is absolutely critical that the money be accounted for in a way that is completely transparent to the public, state officials, and the media,” Fallon said in the letter. “The recent crisis surrounding CIETC exemplifies what can go wrong when there is a breakdown in accountability.”

On March 3, Fallon issued a request for job creation and retention achievements for Iowa Values Fund companies. IDED officials, including former director Mike Blouin, frequently claim that the Iowa Values Fund has already created over 25,000 jobs, despite the fact that IDED’s most recent report showed that only 1,282 jobs have actually been created. IDED’s response to the request indicated that finding and copying the requested information on yearly performance measures would take 142 hours, at a cost of $27.53 per hour.

“What I’m asking for isn’t exorbitant. In fact, I think it’s what every taxpayer should be asking for: accountability from their government,” Fallon said. “Instead, IDED has told me I’m more than welcome to crunch the numbers myself, as long as I’m willing to pay almost $4,000 to get the information. I think that’s pretty ridiculous.”

Responses to Fallon’s previous requests for the most recent information were met with a report from June of 2005, which does not match the numbers IDED and state officials have been using publicly. Fallon again requested the most recent available information.

“In your March 3 letter to me, you only released records up through 6/30/05,” Fallon said in the letter. “End of the year reports were due on December 31, 2005. Nearly 3.5 months have now passed.”

These requests, along with 18 others, are included in the letter Fallon sent to Lawyer.

“I think it’s critically important that we hold our government agencies accountable, especially agencies as well funded as IDED,” Fallon said. “If the recent scandal with CIETC has taught us anything, it’s that limited oversight can create terrible consequences.””

And a quick report from the Sioux City Journal:

“The department says more than 25,000 jobs have been created or retained because of the values fund. This number includes jobs that are scheduled to be added in the next few years.

Fallon argues that the number should be only a few thousand, because most of the jobs are still on the horizon, with little guarantee they will happen.

The people who oversee the values fund say the critics are the ones who are misleading. Lawyer said Thursday that companies benefiting from the values fund face strict scrutiny about the number of jobs they will create and the wages and benefits. Companies that fail to perform can be asked to return the state money.

Some members of the economic development board said unfair attacks should not go unchallenged. They suggested that business leaders or board members should write guest columns in local newspapers to explain how the values fund works.

But some board members said the attacks on the fund are not credible enough to deserve a response. “My personal philosophy is, you don’t reply to garbage,” said board member Craig Lang of Brooklyn.”

First off, it sounds like Mr. Lang has a bit of an attitude problem. I’m not sure where I stand on the Iowa Values Fund, but I do know that some reform is needed and it needs to be thoroughly reviewed. Fallon seems to be squarely against it — from his rhetoric in statements and on the stump — but I honestly just don’t know enough about it. Below the fold, you’ll find the full text of the letter he sent to Ms. Lawyer. I plan on studying it a bit later, after a nice nap later this evening after a long day’s worth of running around.


April 20, 2006

Mary Lawyer

Iowa Department of Economic Development

200 E Grand

Des Moines, IA 50309

Dear Mary,

As you know, one of my major concerns with the Iowa Values Fund (IVF) and other IDED programs is accountability. If we are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in public money, then it is absolutely critical that the money be accounted for in a way that is completely transparent to state officials, the media and the public. The recent crisis surrounding CIETC exemplifies what can go wrong when there is a breakdown in accountability.

I am writing you because I am concerned about the quality of the records you released to me on March 3. There are numerous instances, enumerated below, where the information is incomplete, inconsistent or too ambiguous to be able to fully assess how money has been disbursed, and how the companies that have received funds are performing. In addition, as outlined below, it is unclear to me why some companies are even included in the total number of jobs to be created/retained.

First, I want to raise a broad concern about reporting the progress of the IVF and other incentives. In your 4/03/06 letter, you correctly stated that “the Iowa Values Fund and other IDED business assistance programs will account for 25,015 jobs created and retained” . Yet in a presentation to Marshalltown business people at the Statehouse on March 14, your Powerpoint presentation stated that the IVF and other IDED programs “have . . . created and retained 24,582 jobs at an average wage of $39,582 (incented jobs)” . In short, people are led to believe that these goals have been accomplished when in fact IDED’s own figures show that only 5,907 jobs have been created and retained by all IDED programs, 3,278 have been created and retained by the IVF, and of those, only 1,282 were actually created. This misrepresentation is common, and is included on Mike Blouin’s campaign web site, and was repeated in Gov. Tom Vilsack’s 3/25/06 Des Moines Register opinion piece. Whatever you can do to assure more accurate and consistent reporting of actual, verifiable job creation numbers would be helpful.

Beyond this general concern, I have several points of clarification and additional requests regarding your written responses to my open records requests.

1) In response to my request that you supply job creation and retention goals broken down by each year of each company’s plan, your March 3 letter stated that this has “not been calculated for the Iowa Values Fund as a group”. You then estimated that it would take 142 hours to pull the folders of the 283 companies and copy that information, at a cost of 27.53/hr. It seems incredible to me that it would take 30 minutes per company to pull a folder and photocopy the relevant pages. I ask that you recalculate the estimated time and cost involved and for this reason I reiterate my request.

2) I also asked you for information on any case where IVF monies were dispensed, but required to be returned due to inability to meet job creation goals. Your letter stated that there were no companies that met this criteria. (Note that your letter misstated our request as “inability to meet job creation goals because the project completion dates have not been reached??, while our request simply stated “inability to meet job creation goals.”) Yet, your records listed four IVF projects that were not proceeding. One of them, Phytodyne Inc. received $300,000. In total, 18 companies that are part of IDED business assistance programs from 7/1/03-6/30/05 are not proceeding. A total of $673,000 was disbursed (although not all companies received a disbursement). Please explain why this does not constitute a situation where disbursed funds are required to be returned.

3) My second open records request of 3/24/06 asked that you verify that the documents you sent me are the most recent and accurate figures that IDED has available. Your response stated that “. . . since July 2003 through March 2006, the Iowa Values Fund and other IDED business assistance programs will account for 25,015 jobs created and retained.” This, along with your presentation to Marshalltown business people on 3/14/06, suggests that more recent data is indeed available. In your March 3 letter to me, you only released records up through 6/30/05. End of the year reports were due on December 31, 2005. Nearly 3.5 months have now passed. I request that you release to me a list of all the companies now participating in IDED programs, the amount of assistance pledged, whether contracts have been signed, the number of jobs they have promised to create and retain, and the promised hourly wage of these jobs. In order to evaluate progress, I would also like to know the companies’ information on actual job creation and retention figures, actual amount of funds disbursed, and the actual hourly wage of the jobs. This list should, of course, include companies where projects are not proceeding as anticipated, and the names of companies that did not submit a report.

4) Two years ago, I requested similar records from then-IDED director Michael Blouin. In his response on 4/7/04 Mr. Blouin stated that the Iowa Public Impact Model was “intended to assist with evaluation of the performance of the Iowa Values Fund and other state financial assistance programs.” “The model”, Mr. Blouin stated, “relies upon the cooperation of the participating companies to provide the Department with business tax, wage and job creation estimates and projections.” What is the status of this model, that is, has it been validated by actual data? If it is no longer in use, by what means will IDED calculate return on investment? Why was the Iowa Public Impact Model discarded, if indeed it is no longer being used?

5) In files I have in my office, I have a copy of a contract issued to Data Builder on 4/28/04 as part of the Iowa Values Fund. I have noted two important discrepancies between the contract and the performance spreadsheet.

* The contract specifies that all pledged jobs be created and retained by the end of the third year. Because the contract was dated 2004 and the spreadsheet lists 2004 as the award date, the completion date should be 2007. However, the spreadsheet lists the completion date as 2009.
* The contract says that 36 jobs should be created, yet the spreadsheet lists just 16 to be created. It clearly would be easier to create 16 jobs in five years than to create 36 jobs in three years. Please explain these discrepancies. Because of this, I am concerned about possible discrepancies in other IVF contracts, and so I request copies of contracts for all IVF companies (92 companies listed on the IVF spreadsheet you released to me in March).

6) The spreadsheet lists 99 companies (35 % of the 283 projects) where no contract has been signed. These companies account for 3,878 of the 11,562 jobs promised to be created (34%). If no contract has been signed, how can these companies be officially listed as part of an IDED program, and the jobs included among those that have been promised? As of 12/31/05, how many of these companies had still not signed contracts?

7) Why are some completion dates left blank?

8) Why are some completion dates filled in with NA? Does NA mean “not available” or “not applicable”? In either case, what is the reason for lack of a completion date?

9) What does “royalty” mean, and how does that affect the completion date?

10) On this spreadsheet there are 36 companies that are listed as “on schedule” to meet their contractual obligation, yet the completion date is either left blank, or marked with ‘NA” or “Royalty?” How can a company be assessed as on schedule when there is not a completion date to evaluate the company’s progress?

11) Similarly there are six companies that are listed as “behind schedule”, where the completion date is also blank or marked with “NA” or “Royalty.” Again, how can progress be measured without a completion date?

12) The spreadsheet lists 18 companies where projects are “not proceeding”. These companies account for 475 of the 11,562 jobs promised to be created. Six hundred and seventy-three thousand dollars has been dispersed to these companies. If the projects are not proceeding, why are the jobs still being counted as among those to be created?

13) What effort is IDED making to recover the money dispersed to these companies?

14) Similarly, there are three companies that declined an IDED award, accounting for 65 jobs. Why are these jobs still being counted?

15) Thirty-two companies are listed as participating in multiple IDED programs, where contracts have been signed for only some of the incentive programs. What is the current status of these contracts? If all the contracts have not been signed, how does this affect the number of jobs the companies have promised to create or retain?

16) Eighty of the 283 companies (nearly 30 percent) did not respond to IDED’s request to self report by 6/30/05. What steps has IDED taken to ensure that these companies are being held accountable? What is the current status of these companies and their awards?

17) The spreadsheet lists 87 of 283 companies that are listed as receiving an award, yet no money has been disbursed. What is the reason for this, and how does lack of funds from the state impact the companies’ ability to create/retain the jobs promised?

18) You list the following five companies as part of the IVF spreadsheet yet they do not appear on the performance spreadsheet. Please explain this, and provide information on the performance of each of these companies:

• Five-Star Industries

• AVG Automation

• Info USA Sales Solutions – Carter Lake

• Schebler Co.

• Vernon Co.

19) The spreadsheet lists 31 companies that have completed projects. How was the amount of capital investment derived, and has this figure been verified, versus self-reported? Note that your April 3, 2006 letter stated that once per year company self-reports will be verified with “details of capital investment expenditures.” Presumably, independent verification will also occur upon completion of each project. If this is so, who will provide it?

20) I have noted numerous other discrepancies in the data released to me. Please clarify which is correct.

• Hoffman, Inc. is listed twice on the larger spreadsheet, once with no contract signed and a second time with a contract signed.

Other discrepancies are listed in the table below, and involve differences in figures between the two spreadsheets you released to me.

Company IVF spreadsheet 6/30/06 spreadsheet Item

Central Iowa Renewable 31 23 jobs created
Central Iowa Renewable 4 0 jobs retained
Central Iowa Renewable $16 $18.05 salary
Central Iowa Renewable $79,929,015 $75,929,015 capital investment
Clipper Windpower $846,000 $2,846,000 capital investment
Data Builder $116,000 $118,000 award amount
G Commerce 1,000,000 1,350,000 capital investment
Lincolnway Energy 39 34 jobs created
MG Bionics $118,000 $368,000 award
Protocol Driven Health $320,000 $420,000 award

I realize that this letter is detailed, and that my requests for clarification and additional information will involve some effort. Nevertheless, I trust that a prompt response will be forthcoming, as you have always been extremely cooperative in the past. Know that this is appreciated, and that I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Ed Fallon

As much as I like Ed I'm not sure he could win. I'd hate to have to move out of the state because we lost to Nussle

My signature is on one of those pages!!!

and noticed a lack of mail from candidates as well (I have received one letter from Culver only).

I think the campaigns are spending their money on ads or waiting until the final push in the last couple of weeks.

Taking a quick peek at Culver's site www.chetculver.com it looks like he was just in Dubuque in April.

I am not sure when they plan on getting the signs up, if they do at all, but I haven't seen any up so far. Blouin has quite a few on the main roads.

I don't know if yard signs are worth the money in primary elections. I would think that the people you are able to sway based on names in yards are not the same people that are going to take the time to vote in a primary in June. The people that vote in primaries are probably going to be more involved than picking based on simple name recognition, but perhaps I am wrong?

Does anyone with campaign experience have any idea?

I think Culver's ceded the area to Blouin becasue of Blouin's ties here. Same reason that Braley isn't banging on doors, because of Dickinson. It's just a matter of allocating resources where they'll do the most good, and saving cash for his battle against the Dark Prince, Nussle.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

next Tuesday, May 30 at 5:00PM.

Of course my John Hancock was also on Fallon's, Blouin's, Judge's, and probably Mohamed's petitions as well.

I'm for all the candidates who want to be in it to have a chance...

And leaning that way more and more really.

I support Culver for all of those things Cornfield lists above, and especially his ideas on education and retaining youth in Iowa. I like that he has emphasized the need to promote ethanol in Iowa, and to promote alternative feuls and energy sources. I also like Patty Judge and think she brings a different kind of Democrat to the table. She seems to be no-nonsense and I like that she has the experience as Sec of Agriculture.

Fallon has been great, and I do agree with most of his ideas. If it were all about ideas, I think he'd have a clear shot at winning the thing. Elections are about more than that though, and whether rightly or wrongly some people still hold the Nader endorsement against him. Couple that with his aversion to PAC dollars and how that may alienate some donors (again, rightly or wrongly) I think he would have a hard time unifying our party, let alone unifying our State.

Mohammed, bless the man, he has shown more courage and heart in this race than I could ever hope to show. To make an honest effort at overcoming the race and language barriers in a state like Iowa, and continuing to do so when he realy had no chance from the very beginning, is very admirable. I like some of his ideas as well and really hope that WHOEVER the eventual nominee will be that they make a proactive effort at bringing the other candidates in and maybe using pieces of their plans to help defeat old bag-head.

:hi:

But I think you are missing the point. We need to bring science back into government and take politics out.

We need to follow the SMART principal, which means something that I simply can't remember for the life of me.

And for a family of 4, that is 2 children and their parents, I will put 8,000 dollars in their pocket, because I am going to put science into government.

You see, if I drop this pen, it will fall to the ground. We know that because of science. And that is what I want to bring to government, is pen dropping.
-------------------

Ok, ok, that's enough. I don't mean to poke fun, as I've said before I really respect the guy and what I can get out of his speeches I have liked. He seems to think that by making government more efficient (using scientific processes) he will be able to give money back to everyone. I like his ideas to get more people involved in government. I wish he had a website so I could see some particulars, but I can't find one for him.

Just got an email that Blouin is requesting assistance in canvassing Black Hawk County on May 20th......key Twilight Zone music :tinfoilhat:....Should I help?

I'm still undecided but I'm sort of pledging in my head to spend 20-30 hours helping the nominee--quite a commitment for me.

I'd go:

1. Fallon (Why can't I vote my heart in the primary?)
2. Culver
3. Blouin

I can live with all three but am actually quite enthusiastic about the top two. I hate that Blouin picked that horrible LG candidate although I think the realities of politics forced him to make a quick choice after the Culver-Judge team announced. Am I crazy for thinking he might be regretting it? I do think Blouin gets some unfairly harsh treatment here. People are entitled to their opinion but he will be 1000s of times better than Nussle and I'm afraid people here think Blouin would only be 100s of times better than Nussle.

I am still undecided about who to support in the Governor's race. To tell you the truth I haven't heard much out of any of the three candidates. Where I live it seems like the gubernatorial campaign is nonexistent. That is too bad because I sure can't bare the thought that bag man Nussle will be our governor. It is bad enough that he was my Congressman.

I like Fallon, but I go back and forth on the one question of: Is he electable?

I like Culver, but I don't like Patty (sorry!)

I like Mike as well, but his ad kind of made me mad.

I just don't know what to do. I do know one thing though. On June 7th no matter who the nominee is we ALL need to rally behind that person. No matter what they have done in their past or even how they ran their campaign. We have 4 candidates who will do what is best for Iowa and in the end they would all be better than Nussle. I would rather have someone I agree with on 80% of the issues than someone who I agree with 0% of the time.

It seems we are getting new posters from Dubuque all the time, which is great! How did y'all here about the site?

but thanks for asking. My friend told me about this site.

and especially to the iowa forum!

If you don't mind me asking, what congressional district are you in? It helps to know what part of the state posters are in so we know where they are coming from (and who to bug when we have a related question).

And, by the way, I am in Cedar Rapids.

:spray:

I am supporting Fallon and have been volunteering organizing Marshall Co.

Ed has inspired me to believe in a postive vision for Iowa. The call for clean elections, universal health care, responsible land use, and renewable energy are long overdue. His outspoken comments against government waste and corporate welfare show that he is responsible with our tax dollars. His positions on the issues empower and give the voices back to the regular Iowan.

Definitely have to go with Mr. Culver!

Strongest all-around candidate, hands down.

from Sen. Steve Warnstadt, Reps. Roger Wendt and Wes Whitead supporting Blouin.

"We have gotten to know Mike as Governor Vilsack's Director of Economic Development. We feel he has an excellent working knowledge of state and federal government. As a former legislator he knows how to get things done at the Iowa Legislature. As a former Congressman he knows how to work with the House and Senate in Washington DC and make things happen for Iowans. He is the most qualified person to become Iowa's Governor."

I'm very impressed with Ed Fallon, because he abhors large companies and their money, wants to develop Iowa's economy while keeping most of the money in Iowa, sees the advantage in developing our renewable energy resources, he's a friend of the environment, and he's just a normal person like the rest of us and understands what we need. Throw in the fact that he's won elections against incumbants who outspent him 2 to 1 and you've got a winner.

Gald to have you here and glad your voting for Fallon!
:woohoo: :applause: :patriot:

What are all these legislators going to do if Blouin is not the nominee?


Send out cards in the general election that say "Culver/Fallon was my second choice, good enough...really :blush:" ??

He's the only candidate who talks like a normal person, and he is really liberal for Iowa (pro civil union, pro election reform, anti death penalty, might as well be pro choice, etc.). And the Values Fund works.

Welcome Iowa Ham, You have got your work cut out for yourself. It took me awhile to learn my lesson on the internet. If you don't agree and you can't swing their thought process in a reasonable amount of post, why waste your time entering into a dialog.

I don't mind, I enjoy an argument as much as the next gal. Here's a longer reason for why I'm for Blouin:

1. He's liberal. Not as liberal as Fallon, no, but much more liberal than Culver and more liberal than the state of Iowa should expect from a Governor. Fallon's signature issue is campaign finance reform, and it's obvious from talking to Blouin that he hates the money situation in politics and would love to fix it. Culver is also on board with clean elections, but it seems like more of an afterthought to him.

2. He's electable. Yeah I hate this reason as much as everyone, but there's a reason Rep. Nathan Reichert of Muscatine (probably the most endangered Democrat) endorsed him: because he can help the ticket statewide. Blouin's business connections and his personal ambivalence on abortion - and let's be honest, anyone who isn't at least personally ambivalent about the abortion act itself is a monster - will help him win moderate voters, which are needed to actually win a statewide election in Iowa. All that, and he's still more liberal than Culver.

3. He's a governor. Little "g" governor. He works with people who he disagrees with, strikes compromised where appropriate, and gets things done. Neither of the other candidates really has had any success really in accomplishing anything with their positions, and they've been there 8 and 12 or 14 years respectively. Blouin has gotten a good economic development program passed in a bipartisan fashion, and has seen it become more successful than even he and Vilsack imagined. Even the numbers just on private capital investment to state investment are amazing.

4. He's a good person. Go to a Blouin event and talk to him about anything. He's a good person with a good heart and you can't help but pick that up from chatting with him. He will tell you the truth even when it isn't comfortable, and when he disagrees he will explain why. Blouin is the kind of person where a conversation can inspire you to think, "That's my guy." I can see Fallon doing that for some people, but I just cannot imagine Culver doing that for anyone. Culver is the kind of lukewarm overthought consensus nominee that Democrats always seem to get and lose with.

But I do have to take exception to some of your reasonings.

1. Blouin's 'Liberal' credentials. His voting record in Congress was NOT liberal nor is his support for the Iowa Values Fund (waiving wage requirements in monetary rewards to large corporations is not worker-friendly,) ignoring the need for a minimum wage is not liberal, believing that he can decide what's best for women in this state rather than women deciding on their own is not liberal.

2. Blouin LOST his last election. He lost his last election in the counties where Jim Nussle has won by CONSIDERABLE AMOUNTS for the last several years. We need a candidate that can WIN in the eastern counties of Iowa (and Culver has done that 2x even when the Democrat running for Congress could not beat Nussle - Culver was able to be successful in those counties).

Blouin is not ambivalent about a woman's right to choose - he is 100% against it even SPONSORING legislation to outlaw abortion when he served in Congress (and being against a women's right to choose when he started the race, but 'changing' his position when he wasn't getting any support - just like he changed his position on stem cell research LAST WEEK - what happened to his STRONG CATHOLIC BELIEFS?). I'm sure you are aware that Roe v. Wade was not about abortion but about PRIVACY RIGHTS - Blouin does not believe that women have the RIGHT to make their own health care decisions. (And thank you for passing your moral judgment on people who may hold a different opinion about abortion than yourself).

3. Blouin is a "My way or the highway" type of leader. This I have from personal experience and anecdotal experience. When he found out that we did not support him or his choice for Lt. Governor he actually threatened to 'GET' us. (He said this in front of a reporter who immediately contacted the Culver campaign to tell them of the exchange). If you don't agree with Blouin's way of doing things he will 'Get you'. Also, as I continue to read about Culver, Fallon, Mohamad's ideas for Iowa and hope that our nominee will listen to the other candidates during the general election I notice that Blouin continues to tell Iowans that no one else's ideas will work. He shoots down others ideas and will only follow his own counsel. With both Culver and Fallon questioning the Iowa Values Fund Blouin has insulted both of their intelligence and then gone on to state that he wants to create an additional $160 million manufacturing fund! Rather than listen to any other ideas, Blouin just shuts them down and does it his way.


4. I have been to Blouin events and I have been threatened. That really doesn't inspire me to support him. I have seen him put others down and be proud and boastful. At least with Fallon he will respectfully disagree with you. Blouin flat out states that you are wrong and he 'won't discuss it any further'. As for Culver, I have to say, he listens - my God, a candidate that wants to know what others think. What will come next? A Governor who takes advice?

I am happy a Blouin supporter has jumped on this board. I'm happy that you are going to stay and support your candidate. I disagree with most of what you say about Blouin (and this is not from reading the DMR, but actually spending time w/Mike Bloiun and reviewing his record).

1. You need to get a new angle other than abortion, since he's essentially conceded the point and you're just trying to put beliefs into his heart. How has he ignored the minimum wage? He was personally thanked by Jimmy Carter for his work on increasing the minimum wage in the seventies, and he supports increasing it today. Your attack here isn't fair and you know it.

The Iowa Values Fund only grants funds to corporations for the creation of jobs that pay well. While in a perfect world you could only give grants to those who already pay every single worker well, I'd rather have the good jobs than stand on a principle that accomplishes absolutely nothing and denies people opportunities.

2. He lost to a moderate in a bad year for Democrats in general and a bad year for Iowa Democrats in particular. Culver has won against token opposition. You're comparing apples and oranges and you have to know that it is intellectually dishonest. If you can explain to me why so many people who depend on the work and coattails of the governor's campaign want Blouin elected, I'm all eyes.

As far as I can remember he never changed his position on abortion during this campaign. Can you point to an instance where he talked about supporting changes to current law? Maybe that's why you put 'changing' in quotes. He obviously did change his position on stem cells, and I think for the better - I didn't agree with him on that. His personal views on abortion are his personal views and don't matter unless you just don't like what it says about his character; personally I find it appealing that he can hold a deep religious belief without letting it bleed over into his policy-making.

As far as moral judgements, do you think that it is at all a worthy policy goal to reduce the number of abortions if you can do it without somehow coercing women into alternatives? Why?

3. Did this reporter, you know, report the exchange anywhere? Can you give me the context? This doesn't seem like the type of leadership that would garner many legislative endorsements, don't you think?

As far as listening to other ideas, he's certainly seemed open to a number of Fallon's other ideas at least. He has been critical of Culver's economic development plans for very technical reasons, and at that level I tend to trust Blouin more than Culver since both have track records - one of success and economic growth, and one of mistakes and bureaucratic errors. Fallon doesn't have any track record on anything substantial. The Values Fund is Blouin's baby so his reaction to criticism (especially criticism as half-baked as Culver's) is completely understandable.

4. Culver listens because he loses voters every time he talks. If you've personally been threatened at events then your reaction is certainly understandable, but I hardly think it is representative of Blouin or his supporters. I argued with Blouin several times before I decided which candidate to support, and while he is a spirited debater he has not been dismissive. I would think that someone who argues like you would like that in a candidate. B)

It seems like a lot of your problems with Blouin are from a negative personal experience. I'm sorry whatever happened happened, and obviously you have substantive concerns as well - I don't want to dismiss your criticism out of hand. But unless you think that the campaign has a pattern of behaving that way, it isn't a good reason for anyone else (outside maybe your friends and relatives) to vote against him.

Blouin certainly isn't a perfect candidate - if we could combine Fallon's principles and beliefs, Blouin's pragmatism and personality, and Culver's name recognition and money, maybe we could get close. But I think he's the best chance we have at effecting progressive change at the state level, and that's why I'm supporting him. Also because he's my dad. Just kidding. :D

:)

but was outed by Chris Woods. I don't care that they post, but be honest about who you are for God's sake. :eyes:

incredibly long and passionate response from you:


Summary of HJRES 469 Sponsored by Mike Blouin (co-sponsors - none)

Constitutional Amendment - Declares the term 'person', with respect to due process and equal protection, applicable to human beings irrespective of age, health or function or condition of dependency, including the unborn. Prohibits abortion except in an emergency when a reasonable medical certainty exists that continuation of the pregnancy will cause the mother's death. Requires that every reasonable effort be made to preserve the life of the fetus.

He believes that a fetus is more important than the health and welfare of a woman. I don't understand any woman who is okay with his valuing them and their lives so little. I don't understand any woman who even thinks he has a RIGHT to an opinion about their health and welfare. It is none of Mike Blouin's business - but when he served in Congress he made it his business. Now that he's running for Governor he's decided it's not his business - wouldn't you call that a change? He used his deep religious belief to attempt to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES - that'd be setting policy, but now just shrugs it off as if it has no meaning (except for garnering votes). (Also, he just dumped his deep religious belief to change his position on stem cell research and doesn't seem to mind that he and the Catholic Church disagree on GLBT issues - either his deep religious beliefs have changed or they weren't REALLy that deep all along).

++++++

Mike Blouin as head of the IDED waived the wage requirement in Iowa Values Fund awards to several businesses. Including, but not limited to, Qwest in Souix City and ADM (who, BTW just gave him $5,000 - what they saved in salaries this month?). Sure, the companies that have received assistance through IVF have met their contractual obligation - Because Blouin waived the Fair Wage obligation in the contract (All that Chamber of Commerce experience paying off).

+++++

Culver beat the Deputy SOS in 1998, not really a 'token' opponent.

As for which legislators endorsed Blouin, that has been hashed and rehashed on this board many times - basically coming down to people not wanting to piss off the guy who holds the IVF purse strings or not wanting to piss off the guy who could veto their next bill (has a little merit, don't you think?).

As for Blouin's not being able to retain his seat in Congress, it comes down to the fact that Nussle has been able to get the most votes in the same area for over a decade - and Culver has continually received MORE votes than the individual running against Nussle (20,000 more votes than the Democrat running against Nussle in the 1st District in 2002 and 2004) That's a pretty nice cushion.

++++++

As for Blouin threatening us, what context do you need? Unless you are insinuating that I'm a liar you'll have to believe that he specifically told my husband and I that he would 'get us' because of our non-support of himself and his running mate. When asked if he was actually serious about his threat he said "You're damn right I am and I'm not going to discuss it anymore". The reason we know that the Culver campaign was contacted about it was because they called and asked us if it were true. No, the reporter did not write a story on it (one time the DMR had some class). All we did was disagree with Mike Blouin on who would best represent us in Des Moines, I can't imagine being on the opposite end of an issue with him. Threats really don't equate good negotiation skills.

+++++

As for all your insults about Culver's leadership, intelligence and ability to run his office and decipher Blouin's Values Fund schemes. I'll just drop them.

What is most important is that I trust Chet Culver. I've watched him for eight years continuing to enhance rights for Iowa voters and my husband has known him for the majority of his (Chet's) life. He asks for help when he needs it, he surrounds himself with people who are willing to say NO to him (without fear of retribution) when they don't agree with him, and he looks for the betterment of a situation (not just for him - ie. HAVA and his fight with Tom Vilsack). He is one of my son's heroes (taking the time to visit him during his summer ECHOES program, asking him about the program and what it has done to enhance his education and social skills - where was Mike Blouin? Does he even know what the ECHOES program is? It isn't run out of the SOS office and yet Chet took the time to learn about it. Huh?!)

As for your instructions on how I should determine my support for Blouin based on his behavior or his campaign staff's behavior - anyone who believes that I am nothing more than a walking incubator that HE has the right to control will NOT get my vote. Anyone who threatens ME or MY FAMILY solely because we didn't agree with him will NOT get my vote. Anyone who thinks that living wage issues are disposable just to get big business to move in to the state and garner a few headlines (using MY tax dollars to get himself publicity) will NOT get my vote . And (until Mike Blouin works to take away my First Amendment Rights along with my right to make my own health care decisions) I can tell anyone I please how I feel about him. But thanks for the advice all the same. And, no, on that I'm not kidding :hi:

When I first heard about the proposed constitutional amendment it made me really angry. It still does. But it was thirty years ago and he isn't going to do it in Iowa. Both he and Fallon have committed to an approach that could actually do some good, while Culver has just been trying to use it as a wedge issue in the primary.

Do you have any data on how much those jobs are paying?

Which Register reporter was this in front of?

If you have a problem with using taxpayer money to get headlines, you ought to be supporting Sal Mohamed. :o)

I'm not attacking you for making your decisions based on your personal experiences with a campaign or a candidate. That is a very reasonable position to take, and I've done it many times before. I just think that your experiences are completely unlike anything I've ever heard from anyone else who has been in contact with Blouin or his staff.

experiences with Mike Blouin's threats. I don't know the name of the reporter, but let me be VERY CLEAR when it happened. In Waterloo, the day Blouin announced Andy McGuire as his running mate, at the People's Community Health Clinic. There were plenty of witnesses around (since I'm obviously unreliable as a witness). Why don't you do this, ask Mike Blouin about it. Ask him who he threatened to 'Get' in Waterloo the morning of the big announcement. I'm sure he'll remember since he said it not once, but twice (the second time as we were leaving and my husband tried to reason with him - yet he still YELLED that he wasn't changing his mind, and he wasn't discussing it).

But, if you want to call me a liar, go ahead. Mike Blouin knows the truth. And you can say that it's the only time that it's happened, but when others heard about Blouin's behavior they've shared their stories with us. Please read this post and tell me that only two people in Iowa have had adverse experiences with Mike Blouin:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=152&topic_id=7881&mesg_id=7957

Hopefully nobody else will come forward in the next few days for you to disagree with.

Once again, as for Mike Blouin's anti-women positions, what proof do you have that Mike Blouin WON'T sign legislation limiting women's rights? Because he promised? Wasn't the legislation he introduced a promise? Why is Culver making it a wedge issue? Because he believes women are intelligent enough to make their own reproductive health care decisions? All Culver has done is say that he trusts me to make my own decision about my reproductive health care - that he trust WOMEN to make private, intelligent decisions. Obviously the leaders of Planned Parenthood believe in Chet Culver, or do they also not want to do any good about unintended pregnancies? Is Planned Parenthood only making it a wedge issue? You can hem and haw all you want, as can Mike Blouin, in the end it comes down to trust. I don't trust Mike Blouin.

"Blouin is a "My way or the highway" type of leader. This I have from personal experience and anecdotal experience. When he found out that we did not support him or his choice for Lt. Governor he actually threatened to 'GET' us. (He said this in front of a reporter who immediately contacted the Culver campaign to tell them of the exchange). If you don't agree with Blouin's way of doing things he will 'Get you'."

That's downright scary.

I met Blouin at the 2nd District Convention and I was wearing a Culver sticker at the time -- in hindsight, I should be lucky.

Allow me to digress for a second ... when I met him, I introduced myself to him simply because he was running for Governor. I wasn't sure if it was him, so I asked him, "Are you Mike Blouin?" He looked at my name tag and said, "I am. Are you Joshua?" A tad putoffish (is that a word?), though I saw that he was trying for a bit of humor. I said, "Yeah, but ... I have a name tag." He heartily laughed after that, and I felt kind of weirded out.

the wrong sticker. :P

Did anyone follow you home? :scared:

He never mentioned anything about the Culver sticker (or even if he noticed it). He was nice, but a stereotypical politician type of nice, not the neighborly nice that Sal Mohamed is.

Speaking of whom, Sal was at the 2nd District convention later that day. I know him from 2004, and he was waiting to give a speech, so I walked up to him, realized I was wearing a Culver sticker, quickly tore it off, and was like, "SAL! How ya doing?" I'm not letting Sal know I'm not voting for him -- he's a good dude and I'd hate to come off as rubbing that in his face.

After Sal left, I got a new Culver sticker.

Maybe Debi's experience is completely unrepresentative of Mike Blouin's campaign.

this to others. Unless everyone who doesn't follow Blouin blindly is a liar? :shrug:

I think he is incredibly genuine and a good, progressive candidate.

I like that Vilsack didn't endorse him. It demonstrates that Culver is his own man, and
that he is not a DLC parrot. He seems very genuine and uncorrupted. He truly seems
like an old-time Democrat--much like his father.

I think he would represent the state very well.

I think he had his eyes wide open as Secretary of State, and that he did the best job he
could to ensure fair elections in Iowa. I saw him on the news, the night of the 04 elections,
frantically running around Ames, trying to make sure that there were enough voting machines.
Some Republican hack ensured him that Ames would have enough, and there weren't enough, and
he practically ran a track meet--trying to help out the voters.

He seems like an intelligent, personable, team-oriented person who really cares about Iowa.

I can't say enough about him. I think he would make an excellent governor.

And great choice for Governor!

Weighing pros and cons of all candidates and I think Fallon is my man. I met Culver earlier this evening and he seems ok, although he mentioned several times that he is the one and only Democratic candidate who is polling ahead of nussle. He certainly has the right to mention, indeed he should, but to say it over and over again gets old. I like the fact that Fallon is honest and gutsy enough to say what's on his mind even though it may not be popular. If this man is unelectable, then we are in bigger trouble than I thought. So on June 6, I am casting a vote for Fallon.