Speaking of the First Congressional District

http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2006/05/18/news/politics/472dc8bddaa0a81986257172004a65ef.txt


Dems also trade negative campaign jabs

<snip>

While speaking to the audience, Rick Dickinson, a Democrat from Sabula, accused Waterloo lawyer and Democrat Bruce Braley of running a push poll against him. Dickinson said the push poll suggested that he supports vouchers for private schools (he doesn't), that he insulted organized labor, supported outsourcing jobs, wanted to sell cigarettes to children and didn't want to collect child support from deadbeat dads.

Braley denied running a push poll and said he has run a clean campaign.

"Now Rick, you just made a claim in front of all these people that I've been doing negative campaigning," Braley said during his closing remarks. "One of the easiest forms of negative campaigning is to accuse your opponent of negative campaigning."

<end>

I wonder if any time has been spent on the issues.....:eyes:

Hey! Sabula and Braley! Knock it off! We (Dems nationwide) do not give a flying fuck who started this shit, but STOP IT NOW...BOTH OF YOU! Do not make us pull this bandwagon over and come back there to separate you two CHILDREN. The enemy does business in the US Capitol, and probably your state capitol. DO NOT LOSE TRACK OF WHO IS THE ENEMY!

So is he saying that someone called and said:

"Rick Dickinson wants to sell cigarettes to kids, do you support Rick Dickinson?"

That is a little crazy.

This is the problem with negative campaigning (Attention Mr Blouin), it never ends. Once it starts each side will pick and pick until all the Repubs have to do is sit there, smile, and rake in the votes.

anyone would believe that!!! :rofl:

Truth is that Dickinson DID support vouchers when in the Iowa Legislature a dozen or so years ago. He has since changed his mind. Which he has every right to do. However, I recall him attacking Bruce Braley for some past legal work Braley did. I guess that opens Dickinson up for rebuttals. Dickinson has been running on his record as an elected official. It only seems fair that his ENTIRE record should be subject for scrutiny.

I have a strange feeling that Dickinson rolled some of the fantastic in with some of the truth in the hopes that none of us believe any of it. :shrug:

Whatever, June 6th is exactly 19 days away!

d.

only because Rick Dickinson wrote a letter to the QC Times clarifying his support of vouchers:

http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2006/05/19/opinion/letters/doc446cacc805601129393715.txt

Dickinson defends record on school vouchers

I do not nor have I ever supported school vouchers.

<snip>

Ms. Thede referred to a bill presented in committee when I served on in the Iowa House of Representatives. In 1994, a proposal was made to test new program approaches and technology applications in the classroom through a specific, public-private partnership at what was then McLeod Academy in Marion.

The bill would have authorized the local school board to enter into what is known as a 28-E agreement. It would have leveraged private money to test new concepts through a pilot project. The bill was withdrawn before a vote was taken. I would not have supported it without tough amendments that I proposed.

In a Cedar Rapids Gazette article dated March 17, 1994. I stated: “This is not a ‘voucher bill’ in any way, shape or form.” A school voucher is a program by which certificates are granted to parents to pay for the education of a child using taxpayer money at a school of their choice, rather than at the public school to which they are assigned.

The record shows that no school voucher bills came to a vote in the Iowa House in 1994. Indeed, the leadership of the Iowa State Education Association acknowledges today that the McLeod Academy pilot project had nothing to do with vouchers.

<snip>
____________________________________________________

It kind of seems like a weird thing to do - support a bill (that looks mysteriously like a voucher bill) as long as your amendments are on it and then say you never supported it and you can prove it b/c it was pulled before you had to vote on it. I obviously don't understand the intricacies of politics!

However, Mr. Dickinson's explanation is there FWIW.

Why aren't you writing political columns in the DMR or the CRG or the ICP-C? You make more sense than Herr Professor Doktor der Philosophie und Realpolitik D. Yepsen.

That and I'm a grammar-don't!!! :(

Bill Gluba has never once put down any of his opponents. He focuses in on issues. Just something to think about.

he stated that we had too many lawyers in Congress already and asked where the word Democrat was on Dickinson/Braley's signs, see if you can find the word Democrat on Bruce's signs from a recent town hall meeting he held:



I just checked Dickinson's site and don't see where his signs have Democrat on them, so maybe that was Bill's dig at Rick.

I agree that Bill has been the most mild in his differentiating himself from his opponents, but he has done it a little bit.

(Bill's argument against lawyers in Washington doesn't pass muster - he contributed to Bob Rush in both of his races against Leah as well as to John Edwards in the 2004 primary and then caucused for John Kerry. :shrug:)

I discovered an announcement about a Congressional Forum, and I thought this might be the spot to post it!


There is going to be a First District Congressional Forum tonight on television:
IOWA PRESS
First U.S. District Congressional Candidates--Democrats
8:00 PM, Friday, May 19, 2006

Happy watching and remember there is only 18 days left until the primary. If you are undecided hopefully you hear something that you like tonight.

Eerily, Seth, the only candidate to have this on their web site is Rick Dickinson. Not that all posters in the Iowa Forum with only 1-2-3 posts are sock puppets for Dickinson. I'm certain THAT is a coincidence. :hi:

the Congressional debate?

Hope you stick around after June 6th :hi:

I will be here until Nov. 2008 because we all know that democrats are REALLY looking forward to that election year! Good-bye BUSH and company!

:7

I get the impression that, with the trial lawyer thing, Dickinson is simply saying that it'd be a hindrance that the Republican opponent would trounce on like a bear sensing blood ... NOT something like, "He's a trial lawyer, ergo he's bad." At least that's the impression that I got. I know someone with Dickinson's campaign who was telling me what he meant.

That said, it'd probably be best for both of them, as well as the Democratic Party, if they both quit bitching about each other and just went on promoting themselves. If they want to bash each other, that's what whisper campaigns are all about.

I met Dickinson early in April, and I was very impressed with his intelligence and his sense of rural economics. I must admit that I don't know much about economics -- I just don't have a mind for it -- but he wowed me with his knowledge. He doesn't need to go taking jabs at Braley. It's true that the tensions have heated up between the two camps, but it's important to remember that in a few weeks, we're all going to be on the same side.

Attacking the other candidate in a primary is only going to serve to hurt the party's chances at the seat in the long run. I've met both Dickinson and Braley, and they're both better than that.

Look, a couple years ago I worked for Gene Blanshan's Congressional campaign. He pretty heavily emphasized NOT to attack our Democratic opponents and instead focus on Steve King. Sure, he lost to Joyce Schulte, but there were no hard feelings, no animosity at all between the Blanshan, Schulte, and Sal Mohamed camps. The focus was always on the Republican candidate and what the Dem would do to improve the situation. After the primary ended, I approached Joyce Schulte, and she knew I worked with Blanshan, but she had no animosity toward me at all (and vice-versa), and I was proud to help her in her run for Congress. We're on very friendly terms to this day.

In the First District, if the desire to focus on an enemy is that strong, focus on Jim Nussle. Mention that the Republican candidate (whoever that ends up being) will only carry on Nussle's dismal legacy and then present yourself as a strong alternative. Being an anti-Nussle will probably be strong enough to resonate with the strong Democratic base which will be voting in the primary.

Attacking fellow Democrats in a campaign will only serve to turn around and bite yourself in the ass. See the backlash toward Mike Blouin on this board as proof of that. Focus on what matters -- gaining a seat and installing a progressive agenda. It'd be best for everyone involved, it'll help in creating a united Democratic front, and it'll make the transition from a Democratic candidate to the Democratic nominee so much easier.

for saying so well what I meant in earlier postings...and really screwed up, by the way

I just get sick of the petty arguing amongst Democratic candidates. It amounts to a grown-up version of sibling rivalry between children, and attacking fellow Dems will make you look bad to the Dem base which will vote in the primaries.

People constantly say that negative campaigning turns them off and that they won't vote because of it. And yet people always make it to the polls. I'll take my words back if you can find me one instance where a person just didn't vote because of negative campaigning. People will still vote, no matter how bad it gets. It's a sad fact.

I didn't mean that they wouldn't vote. I just meant that they wouldn't vote for a specific candidate in the primaries.

For instance, say there are three Democratic candidates. Candidate A spends most of his time attacking Candidate B, Candidate B spends most of his time attacking Candidate A, and Candidate C spends most of his time talking about the issues. I'd be more inclined to vote for Candidate C in the primary.

The attacking of a fellow Democrat could alienate your Democratic base in the primary, resulting in you losing votes and support and creating a rift between Dems.

I see your point. I just think in the end people who have already made up their minds before the end-weeks bickering are still going to vote for the candidate they liked. Undecideds may be swayed by the mud slinging, I'll give you that.

:hi:

I'm in the 2nd District, so there's no competition for the Democratic nomination. However, with the Governor's race, I made up my mind months ago about supporting Culver. It was obvious in the conventions that many others have made up their minds as well. I don't know how much of a difference it makes, but it could make a difference among undecideds. That and the GOP candidate can essentially just take the argument that the Dem competition was making and run with it.

I'm not hugely familiar with infighting between the Gephardt and Dean camps. I was out of the state, polishing off my first undergrad degree, for all but the last month before the Iowa Caucus, and (as you pointed out about having made up minds) I was for Dean all along. Nothing against Dick Gephardt, as I admire his pro-union stance and would have been fully comfortable with him, but I just liked Dean more.

So Dickinson just wants all of us to know that if Bruce Braley is our nominee that the mean old republicans are going to go after him because he's an 'ambulance chaser'. (see the link regarding the Dubuque debate if you don't understand).

Bullshit. Trial Lawyers have ran for office and won from City Council seats all the way to the US Senate here in Iowa - and just about every seat in between. Being a Trial Lawyer is not an impediment at all to Congressional success.

In fact both Dickinson and Gluba have supported Trial Lawyers in their quest to become President (both caucused for Kerry and Gluba also gave money to Edwards). Both Dickinson and Gluba have supported Trial Lawyers in their quest to represent their respective districts in Congress (Rob Tully, Bob Rush). And (assuming they voted in 1998) both of them supported a Trial Lawyer for Governor of Iowa (since both Mark McCormick and Tom Vilsack are Trial Lawyers).

It is only NOW that they are running against a Trial Lawyer for the very nomination that they want to fill do they find it necessary to warn the public that the republicans will use being a Trial Lawyer against Braley if he's the nominee and neither of them have that issue to contend with.


I agree that Dickinson should knock the crap off - but he's not doing it as a gentle warning. It's called negative campaigning. Don't believe it's anything less.

It is. I agree that it's negative and unnecessary. I have nothing against trial lawyers (so long as they're ethical) -- I plan on supporting John Edwards if he runs for President.

I'm an outsider to the 1st District. I was just relaying what I had heard. I don't think it's the best tactic either -- Dickinson has enough credentials as an economic developer to run on that and forego negative campaigning.

and has continued negative. Such is life. :shrug:

Hadn't really followed from the beginning. That's too bad. Especially when he can play off his economic record. Hopefully he does that more in the next couple weeks.

I had met Dickinson in April in an economic forum in which I was invited (and stuck out like a sore thumb as a college student amongst professionals) and was very impressed. There was no bashing. Just information. That's why I was taken aback by hearing he was bashing as he apparently has.

(btw, this is my 200th post!) :toast:

You'll be hitting 1,000 in no time. :party:

I didn't know Dickinson before the primary (which is strange, because I've been involved in politics in the old second and old first Districts and what now is the First District and yet never met him or saw him at a Democratic event :shrug:), and being the wife of a trial lawyer (and on the Central Committee) in Waterloo I obviously knew Braley and had worked for Gluba after the primary in 2004 (even w/his anti-women's rights stance he would have been better than Nussle :puke:).

...why you were so upset about the trial lawyer issue.