Thursday, October 06, 2005

This one might scare you: I'm about to advocate for a Republican.

My State Rep. and my State Senator have now both announced their endorsement of Mike Blouin. I've been sick to my stomach all night. I think the two are related.

After reading Oldson's endorsement, I wrote the two of them this e-mail:

Sen. McCoy, Rep. Oldson,

My name is (name deleted, for the three of you who don't know it). I've been a citizen of your district and a straight-ticket voting Democrat since 2000. I'm also a former IDP canvasser. I'm writing today to let you know my straight ticket streak is about to end, because in light of your endorsement of Blouin, I fully intend to support anyone who runs against you.

Mike Blouin is a pro-life, big business political hack. What could you possibly be thinking? If someone on the outside looked at Blouin, they wouldn't even know he was a Democrat.

Way to abandon the party values.

Ed Fallon and I discussed this e-mail briefly after I sent it, and he asked me, "So if it comes down to Blouin or Nussle, who would you support?"

I didn't even flinch on it. "Nussle."

He was surprised. Most of my fellow staff members were surprised too. But here's why I'd do it.

SCENARIO 1: Nussle beats Blouin. Nussle is the chairman of a committee that recently celebrated a drop from $400+ billion of defecit to $300+ billion. He's been a key proponent of tax cuts for the wealthy, and would cut business taxes in an effort to grow small business. Education, health care and the environment will be ignored. In short, he'll be dreadful.

Then, a campaign run by me or someone like me will have a candidate who either is Ed or is greatly similar. After six years of choosing the "most electable" Democrat (Mr. Gore, Mr. Kerry, then Mr. Blouin), then getting our asses kicked, the Democratic Party finally wakes up and supports a candidate who actually shares its values.

Downsides: Four years of Republican leadership, including an ignored education, health care and environmental protection system.

Upside: Only four years, followed by a Democratic rejuvenation which strengthens the Democrats and makes them viable again.

Scenario 2: Blouin beats Nussle. Blouin, as mentioned above, is pro-life, and has been the key craftsman of the INCESTUAL Fund. He runs the state broke giving money away to big business and calling it "economic development." In the 50th ranked state for small business, the small business climate actually gets worse. Education, health care and the environment are all things Blouin talks about for priorities, but after he gives half the state's budget to Wells Fargo, Wells Dairy and Maytag, there won't be money left to pay for it.

Then, someone like me (but not me, cause if Blouin gets elected I'm fleeing the state) will recruit another grassroots Democrat to call Blouin out in the primary. He'll recognize that to beat Blouin, he needs to make the public aware of every mistake Blouin has ever made. His campaign will be tremendously negative, but he'll bash Blouin from pillar to post. The primary will come, and Blouin will win because Democrats will think his challenger is too prone to anger. However, the damage will be done to Blouin, and knowing all his flaws, the state will elect a Republican. Any Republican, really. Steve King could get it. And for the next 20 years, every time a Democrat runs for Governor, people will say "Oh, we tried that. Remember Mike Blouin?" And then we get another Republican dynasty like Ray/Branstad all over again.

So really, it's 4 bad years vs 24. If Ed loses to Blouin, I'll vote for 4.



Chris Woods said...

Great email. I never imagined either Oldson or McCoy endorsing Blouin, and I still can't understand why they'd do so. Sure he's focused on economic development, but like you and Ed Fallon have pointed out, he's basically a crony for big business and there aren't guarantees that the Iowa Values Fund will work.

Your scenarios make sense, too. I'm hoping Blouin won't be the candidate. And from the looks of internal Culver polling right now, he's not even close (see my blog for some of the numbers, which I think are still kinda sketchy).

One final question--Would you really vote for a Republican who challenged Oldson or McCoy? I mean, honestly, the Republican could be a lot, lot worse. I'm sure it was just a threat, but I just want to clarify.

KL Snow said...


Voting for Republicans is almost always a questionable practice on my part...I'd be much less reticent to vote for a primary challenger. In fact, if the right primary challenger came along I'd probably offer my services.

Nussle over Blouin is one of the rare cases where I can absolutely justify crossing over.

McCoy and'll depend on the Republican.


chris said...

Do either of you think Culver's got the chops to beat Nussle? I'm hoping that's who the Dems go with because I think he's the weakest candidate.

At this point in the race Culver's numbers probably reflect the fact that a lot of people think it's his old man running again...