Potential Iowa Governors on Parade

The six Democrat gubernatorial candidates debated last evening on IPT for 90 minutes. It was at times lively and informative. Themes that stood out, candidates were running against Kim Reynolds and running against Fred Hubbell, the current front-runner in the polls. Other themes were connecting with voters who feel disconnected from Iowa politics, the problems of health care particularly mental health care and health care for women, water quality, and wages and workers rights.

On the face:
 Former Chief of Staff  John Norris: Portrayed himself as the most experienced Democrat in terms of his political bona fides with experiences that span national and state politics.
Former businessman Fred Hubbell: Presented his family history, business, and philanthropy and volunteer experiences. State Sen. Nate Boulton: set his frame around the workers of Iowa both as a lawyer and State Senator.
Former state Democratic Party chair Dr. Andy McGuire: Made the case for her service in caring for others as a doctor and health care executive leader.
Former mayor Ross Wilburn: Brought out his 12 years in elected politics and his experiences in the Army, in economic development, and his diverse family and issues around LGBTQ.
ICU Nurse Cathy Glasson: Made the case for her working-class roots, a labor leader and being the alternative progressive candidate to the other five with the fight for $15 minimum wage and single-payer health care.

Priorities for each;
Norris: Fund Education/Reverse privatization, reverse tax cuts
Boulton: Repeal Collective Bargaining bill, reverse privatized Medicaid
Glasson: Raise minimum wage to $15 per hour, reverse tax cuts, "Iowans need a raise" to bring in tax revenue, "Unemployment low, but the Misery Index is high"
Wilburn: Mental Health and Education K-12, higher education, anti-trafficking, reverse Medicaid privatization
McGuire: Healthcare around Medicaid mess and mental health care
Hubbell: Reverse privatization of Medicaid on day one; fully fund pre-k and public education, reverse wasteful tax giveaways, unfunded priorities, mismanagement of the budget

All but Glasson for 3/8 tax for water quality funding; Glasson wants taxes on Big Ag for nitrogen, CAFOS, etc. Other echoed Hubbell in essentially saying "Water Quality is an Iowan problem" and tax addresses it for all.

Electability X-Factors:
Hubbell: (Hit  - Never elected, rich/out of touch):  Been all  over the state, better education, better healthcare, incomes go up; getting results in public/private life
Boulton: (Hit - too young): New generation of leadership, labor support, vision for the state
Glasson: (Hit - too liberal): highlighted bold, progressive women candidates winning, proud of attacks against her because of support of single payer, raising the minimum wage, and vision moving us ahead
McGuire: (Hit - Head of the party that lost under leadership): Upset over Republican agenda, worked hard to win as state Democratic Party leader but could not overcome the national tide
Norris: (Hit: Lack of fundraising ability): Running the gauntlet of other candidates for funding, if he wins the primary, it would be from fundraisers who support Hubbell, Boulton, Glasson
Wilburn: (Hit: Elected in most liberal town/county in Iowa): Wasn't progressive enough/was too liberal; Been in many parts of the state, rural Iowans concerned about water and making a living

More on the debate summary can also be found on The Iowa Starting Line website.

Give the Voter a Chance

Iowans receive more than just a little attention leading up to the Iowa caucuses in January. This is both a blessing and a curse. In part, it does help for candidates to roll out their campaigns and issues in front of real voters, as opposed to the RNC or the DLC. And it is very helpful for the people to have an opportunity to talk to the Pols about issues that matter to them, so they know who best represents their views. So far, so good.

However, there is a line that needs to be drawn and that line is around national groups setting up shop in primary states to get their particular issue up on the toteboard of national consciousness at the expense of the people who live there having a chance to speak their piece.

Now I am not advocating against anybody's free speech, but I'm railing against "bought" speech. I'm not even talking just about advertising, I'm talking about lobbyists that are paid to follow campaigns, pass out slick brochures, and make comment to the press.

If you are a issues group, you want your issue to rise to the top of the heap and so advocacy is key, no question. However, if you are Joe Citizen and you want to ask Candidate Smith about what her/his view on farm subsidies is, it can be difficult when "bird doggers" are running around to every campaign event to get the candidate's take (probably for the 30th time today) on their issue.

Now many will disagree with me because they see this as a basic right (and believe me, I see the point too). I guess what I hope for is that those persons fighting the fight for their cause will take a step back for the potential voter so that they can get a word in edge-wise--who knows, maybe Citizen Joe will even do their work for them.

Popular Progressive- Putting People First

Hi,

I am Gark, and no, it is not my name. However, because I want to be honest in what I say, I choose to be "undercover" as I describe the murkiness of Progressive ideals.

Mainly, I wanted to create a blog that is open to disagreement, even within the friendly confines of "progressives"--because I don't think we all agree what that means.

I believe "Progressive" is making conscious choices that improve the lives of people and considers both the intended consequences (and the unintended consequences) of decisions that affect us now and our children down the road. I define these choices in terms of social, economic, and personal. Specifically I define progressive issues around sustainable policy, that is fair to those affected by it, and results in fiscal and moral/ethical responsible outcomes.

For example, global climate change (aka global warming) is an issue that requires a progressive approach because the results of global warming are likely to be devastating by all measures, economic, social, and personal, and the solutions are likely to have significant consequences to the American Way of Life (AWOL).

Solutions will be complex and will require sacrificing other important goals--e.g., a mass consumption based economy.

A progressive response could to be to join in with other nations approving a carbon dioxide emissions standard (ala the Kyoto accord). It would be to invest in alternative (clean, safe, lower carbon dioxide producing) energy production, improved mass transit, incenting consumers to either convert existing cars to biofuels, adopting higher CAFE standards for fuel economy, and so on. In addition to invest into our educational system to encourage science and math literacy and encouragement for all students to pursue careers in science, math, and engineering fields.

Progressive Politics has a ways to go to become "mainstream", but it will only happen if we can present our ideas and plans to people in ways they can understand. In other words, we have to make our case AND learn what the needs are of people that are not being met in today's political environment.

Since this is my blog, I will attempt to make my case.

This is what I think is wrong about how political parties work.

1) People are not valued for what they can contribute to political discourse, but for what they CONTRIBUTE $.
2) Political parties do not reach out to constituencies that REALLY need political clout (e.g., the poor)
3.) Political parties build leadership through attrition--Darwinian "survival of the fittest" mentality.
4.) Political parties do not know how to "play nice"--that is make your point versus the opposition, but don't go to the lowest common denominator to do it.
5.) They mostly work by instilling fear about the alternatives.
6.) Political parties do not generally match people to their talents effectively.

Next, what should the Progressive agenda be?