Blouin gets AFSCME endorsement

[Debi]

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060222/NEWS09/602220359/1056

<snip>

Iowa Council 61 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has backed the winning candidate in Iowa Democratic gubernatorial primaries dating from 1986, the first year the union made a primary endorsement, union officials said.

The list of candidates receiving AFSCME endorsements includes Gov. Tom Vilsack, who won his first term by edging fellow Democrat Mark McCormick in the primary before defeating Republican Jim Ross Lightfoot in the 1998 general election.

Blouin, a former state economic development director who has served as a congressman, said AFSCME's financial and organizing prowess will help him in every Iowa county. The union represents about 20,000 state workers.

The endorsement gives Blouin's campaign some fresh momentum following last week's announcement by Secretary of State Chet Culver, a leading Democratic rival, that Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Patty Judge was joining his ticket.

<snip>

Other news on Blouin vs. Culver:

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060222/NEWS09/602220368/1056

<snip>

Iowa legislators had agreed in 2003 to strike the words "idiot" and "insane" from the Iowa Constitution, replacing them with the more socially acceptable term "mentally incompetent" when referring to certain people banned from voting.

But Culver's office failed to publish a notice of the proposed changes in 2004. In addition, Chief House Clerk Margaret Thomson's office was required to publish the amendment in its entirety in the House Journal, but it was only published in part.

<snip>

A short time later, Culver asked Blouin whether Iowa pharmacists should be required to dispense the so-called "morning-after pill." Blouin said the issue was a federal matter, which prompted Culver to ask, "So do you favor dispensing the morning-after pill to women in Iowa, yes or no?"

Blouin replied, "I'll tell you, you tell me why you screwed up on the constitutional amendment."

<snip>

[IA_Seth]

1. Oh jeez...

What I had hoped would be a productive spring with VP on Nussle hate-fest has become a "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" between our two strongest candidates.

Blouin needs to own up to his beliefs and answer Culver's question. It is relevant, and may help Iowa Democrats decide who to vote for. It seems like an especially fitting question at a forum sponsored by a pharma-group.

Culver should also be forthright in explaining any mistakes he made last year, which it sounds like he did in a published statement. It probably would have deflated Blouin if he would have just said so at the forum. While he should be responsible for any oversight that occurred in his office, this isn't a policy question.

This could be quite ugly before the end.

What do y'all think?

[Debi]

2. But Culver's office wasn't the only one to foul up

although he does take full responsibility there were two mistakes made:

"....In addition, Chief House Clerk Margaret Thomson's office was required to publish the amendment in its entirety in the House Journal, but it was only published in part."

Even if Culver's office hadn't screwed up the vote still wouldn't go this cycle. Why isn't Blouin rallying against government inefficiency in the statehouse? Why is he only going after Culver on this issue?? Hmmmmm.

Regarding the other issue, Blouin's refusal to admit that he is still very ANTI-women's reproductive health care rights. That comes down to only one person taking responsibility....Mike Blouin.

(I'm also sitting here wondering when the GLBT issue is going to come up, it started to in the fall and then was taken over by the money race. Now that Vilsack is for Civil Unions but against Marriage for gay/lesbian couples where will Blouin land on the issue? If he's for gay/lesbian rights then he's against his church - which is hypocritical since the reason he states for being against women's reproductive health care rights and stem-cell research is his religion - if he's against gay/lesbian rights because of his religious beliefs why isn't he speaking out against the current Governor about the promotion of equal rights for all people?)

[IA_Seth]

3. Yeah, I agree...

And I think I've finally made up my mind who will get my vote in the primary race. Blouin's lack of conviction for his convictions only shows him to be a "politician" in the negative sense of the word.

I only wish that Culver would have accepted responsibilty for his portion and commented on the House Clerk's portion during the debate. Of course there are probably reasons for his not doing so (like he didn't know for sure what the situation was that led to the failure, etc).

Blouin seems to me to be a walking contradiction, and will hopefully run a clean race so Culver can come out and whoop ol' Nussle come November.

[Debi]

7. That'll be the day

:eyes:

[tom2]

5. Blouin evasive

A Blouin supporter told me that it might be wise to be vague during the primary so that Blouin could take a more moderate stance during the general election against Nussle. I suppose this make sense, but he seems to be turning off a number of activists (I think that is all that is paying attention at this time) with a fuzzy stance on abortion rights, embryonic stem cell research, and now access to contraceptive drugs (in front of a pharmacist group, no less). And throwing up Culver's mistake at this point of the forum seems pretty transparent.

I think he has slowly cleared up where he stands on abortion rights, but he needs to clarify where he stands on embryonic stem cell research and access to contraceptives.

I am still neutral in the governor's race, but Blouin is making it hard.

[Debi]

6. How has he cleared up where he stands on women's reproductive

health care rights? He's stated that he's against them and his past legislative experience shows he's against them because he's voted to restrict women's rights. but now....now that he wants to be Governor he states he won't sign legislation restricting or outlawing a woman's right to choose. Will he sign legislation that protects that right? Clear as MUD!

[tom2]

9. Won't sign any legislation that changes . . .

He has said that he will not sign off (will actually veto) any law that changes the status of how it is now in Iowa. I take that to mean that he will also veto a law that granted greater access to abortion.

I can't say that I like this stance, but it is clearer than it was a few months ago. I would be happier if he was also that specific on embryonic stem cell research (where we definitely need to lift prohibitions) and now access to contraceptives (which he apparently won't answer).

I am not defending Blouin, but I have not written him completely off, either.

But now I have to run to the save the constitution vigil (MoveOn.PAC sponsored).

[Debi]

11. Have fun saving the constitution!

:hi: :patriot:

[ISUGRADIA]

17. Blouin has said he "would not sign any law" that is not vetoing it

A Governor has three options with a law 1) sign the passed bill 2) not sign it and it goes into effect without his signature after a few days 3) Veto the bill. Blouin has said he would number 2. The leg just needs a majority with that option. A Veto requires 2/3

[tom2]

22. Said he would veto

I have not seen it published, and I was not present when he said it, but several people have told me that Blouin has explicitly stated that he would veto a bill that changed the status/availability of abortions in Iowa. Blouin needs to be explicit in a public statement, but apparently he fears this could hurt him in the general election.

[ISUGRADIA]

23. I have heard this too

but if he's that scared of taking a public stand on a key issue maybe he should not be running

[IA_Seth]

8. Very hard..

I was actually leaning Blouin by default before I actually knew anything about him, based on personal meetings and what others have said about him. A "nice guy" and all that. I am sure he is.

But his stance on choice (and his "clarifying" didn't do much for me), and his use of religion as reasoning for that decision is very troubling. Add that to his IDED record (questionable for me anyway) and it makes it very hard to even consider him as a Democratic candidate.

This comes with the obvious, "yes I will vote Dem if he is the man" disclaimers.

[Debi]

12. Obviously, any Dem running is better than the Time-warp twins

I don't think anyone here wants to take Iowa back to the Ward and June Cleaver era where Dad wears a suit to work each day to support the family and Mom stays home and cooks and cleans in her dress and heels and pearls. :eyes:

[IA_Seth]

4. Oh yeah...one more thing..

A little birdy pointed out to me that AFSCME also endorsed Mr Dean for '04...and we all know how that went, right?

I was distracted by the Culver/Blouin forum ballyhoo.

AAAAaaarrrgh!

[Debi]

10. Blouin keeps stating that AFSCME has endorsed the primary

winner in the Governor's race for the last twenty years. Eight of those years (or two cycles) they endorsed Vilsack - and when he ran for re-election he didn't have an opponent so it's really only one endorsement.

The other three races (1986, 1990, 1994) the guy they endorsed couldn't beat Brandstad so I don't know if their track record is really THAT great.

let's see:

1986 Junkins
1990 Avenson
1994 Campbell (who now is supporting Culver)

(Granted, they all were running against an incumbent Governor.)

So, other than that one time AFSCME endorsed in the primary in 1998 (they didn't endorse Vilsack during the primary season in 2002) they've chosen the general election LOSER. Great news for Iowa :shrug:

[IA_Seth]

13. Yeah, its funny how stats work eh?

You can always twist things to make them "support" your cause.

Hell, with his logic, why don't we just let AFSCME decide who our candidate will be. There he goes again, wanting to take away our ability to choose.

Lol.

[Debi]

14. It was a little snarky, I know.

Ed Fallon is pissed BTW, he says that many AFSCME members are Fallon supporters. Also, one of the articles says that a telephone survey of the members showed that 70% wanted to endorse in the primary. (No, it didn't say wanted to endorse Blouin in the primary, just that they wanted to endorse.) So, did the endorsement get left up to the leadership? :shrug:

Okay, I'll try to get off this kick. Congrats to Blouin for getting the endorsement, I how the AFSCME curse doesn't befall you if you win the primary. (Cuz if their primary choice doesn't win I can pretty much guarantee you that Nussle will cut AFSCME members to little or no work in our state).

On Edit:

and cute play on words there, Seth! :hi:

[rurallib]

15. I still cannot understand labor leadership's love of Blouin

Scares me to think that VP and Nussle will have a love fest, play before hand-picked crowds like that shithead of a president does. I would like to think Iowans could see through that crap but like many others I continue to be amazed by the lack of judgment of the populace as a whole.
I prefer Fallon but Culver would be very acceptable. Blouin really scares me in this age of pullbacks on women's rights.
Sorry for the ramble. Not coherent today. Things are really starting to whip into what is looking like a storm.
BTW if I read Debi's post right the Culver error seems to be very miniscule and easily correctable. Hardly a real issue.

[Debi]

19. It the love of the current Governor who has the power to help or hurt them

AFSCME was not happy with Vilsack during the 2002 cycle and almost didn't give him their blessing (actually waited until their state convention or the Iowa Fed convention in August of 2002 to finally endorse him). I believe he has made peace with the union and (I need help here) I think he helped them with a nice wage or insurance benefit increase this cycle. The payoff? In my mind and endorsement for Blouin (who as head of the IDED willing allowed multi-million dollar corps to receive tax-free land or forgivable loans and waived the living wage requirement for those give-aways - let's not even talk about Blouin's anti-PLA stance). AFSCME should not like Blouin, but for and unknown reason they do. Hmmm.

As for the Culver office mistake. It was right of him to take responsibility. That's what we should expect of our leaders.

[CornField]

16. This figures

I do love my union guys, but they've got to wake up. Case in point, the coal miners union. Instead of spending their discussing the things which should truly matter to their union (black lung disease, safety laws, etc.) they spent their time discussing gay marriage.

I seriously doubt anyone would die if two men or women were allowed to join in a legal union. I'm quite certain cave ins, lax safety standards and violation ignorance can kill people.

[ISUGRADIA]

18. Sloppy error v Restricting women's rights

Bad thing for Culver but the amendment is more of a verbal housecleaning than having any real effect. Blouin is hedging which means his answer will not be the one primary voters wish to hear.

Blouin sayng the issue is a federal one means he's either lying or ignorant and whichever it is is pathetic. Several states already have passed such laws. One has been introduced here in MN.

[Debi]

20. will it pass? what will your Gov. do? n/t

[ISUGRADIA]

21. If it did pass I'm sure our right wing president wantabe gov

would gladly sign it. I think the bill does not have a chance here in the Dem controlled Senate even if it passed the House. This year alone we've pcked up 2 Senate seas in special elections and 1 fron an Independent who switched to Dem.

[Debi]

24. thank goodness n/t