The Press-Citizen does a very good job of making the case for Dave Loebsack...
The Loebsack supporters' third argument is the most effective: If Leach is going to be at odds with his party on so many issues, wouldn't it make sense to vote for a candidate whose party actually advocates those same issues? As powerful as the office of U.S. Representative is, a lone representative can accomplish little without caucusing with other members and without appealing to the party leadership.
Indeed, it would it would seem that some of the more radical proposals Leach has offered would be much more likely to come to pass if the U.S. House was under Democratic control rather than Republican control. This is especially true of his 'Declare Democracy and Get Out' call for an immediate drawdown of our troops in Iraq...
but then reverts to that old crutch of Objective Journalists: We luv moderates.
But that doesn't mean that we should punish Leach for speaking his mind to his party's leaders. Although we would agree that Leach could be a more active force for his moderate politics, he is hardly without influence in Washington. He still has the ear of the key decision makers, including that of his former boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld...
Which would explain why Leach hasn't joined Loebsack in calling for Rumsfeld's sacking.
Muddled moderation might have had a place back in the disco era when Leach was first elected, but these days the parties actually stand for something, and Leach chooses to stand with Bush and Rumsfeld and Hastert and Steve King.
Federal campaign finance reports show Loebsack outraising Leach:
Loebsack reported to the Federal Election Commission that he received $52,000 in contributions between Oct. 1 and Oct. 18. Reports were due Thursday.
Leach said he received about $16,000 in the 18-day period.
The struggle continues: Thanks to the New Jersey courts, gay marriage moves to the front burner. Register rounds up Culver and Nussle. Chet's wrong, Nussle's waaaaay more wrong. Or: Chet wusses out, but Nussle really means it.
I'm tired of settling for wussing out. Ultimately we need to get to the point where an Iowa politician can say publicly "I fully support gay marriage" without it being political suicide. I'd like to see it just because it makes the theocrats so disproportionately mad, and their faces turn the loveliest shades of red and purple.
While Culver has slammed the door in the faces of Iowa's gay community in opposing marriage, he is at least anticipating a less bigoted future. In opposing a constitutional amendment, Culver leaves that door unlocked. He supports some expansion of rights, which may be akin to letting folks sleep in the barn. Second class accomodations but somewhat warmer that the snowbank. Nussle chases gay Iowans off the farm with a shotgun, locks the door, throws away the key, and nails it shut.
True, neither one invites folks into the house for dinner - but do you see a difference?