After watching the debate on IPTV today between the three (there might be more, but I haven't heard of them) democratic candidates for governor, I feel I should throw the half ounce or so of political weight I have behind one.
First, I'm going to summarize what I perceived to be the views of the candidates from this debate:
Chet Culver's seems to be emphasizing economic growth and growing industries like ethanol and other alternative fuel production. This would, he says, would help renew Iowa's economy and make us the leader in the nation of renewable/alternative energy. He is also a former teacher, and says that if elected, he'd be the only governor in the country now who's been in the classroom in the last 2 decades. He didn't say when the last time was that he taught, but I think that experience is kind of minimized if he stopped teaching 19 years ago.
Ed Fallon wants to really clean up the government, end handouts to big companies who are just going to leave Iowa, and instead give reasonably to Iowa based businesses and interests. He said, for instance that he supports tax breaks for wind energy to help advance that. He got points with me early on by blasting NAFTA, citing all of the manufacturing jobs that have left Iowa and the U.S., and specifically the closing of the Maytag plant last week (I think that was in Newton). Mr. Fallon also gives the impression of a fun and nice guy to be around. He was the only one I think who joked around, and he seemed to be the biggest supporter of the average person. The only slight drawback is that he said he would repeal legislation banning sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of schools and day care centers if elected governor and given the chance.
Last but not least, Mike Blouin. He has the most political experience of the three, at the state and federal levels, and it shows. He is also a former teacher, and on the economy, cleaning up the government, and developing Iowa's alternative energy resources, his views aren't extremely different from the other two. Blouin's only slight drawback is that he is against abortion, although he says (very strongly I thought) that he will not change the state's abortion laws either way, instead improving access to other means like adoption and birth control. This, he hopes would bring down the number of abortions without changing the laws. I can live with that. He was asked a tough question by Culver just after he explained his views and plans on abortion about why, then, had he introduced a bill into state legislature banning all abortions? That was a tough attack (and by far the most hostile moment of the debate), and I was sure he wouldn't be able to parry it and that his campaign was over, but after taking a second to think, he responded that that was back in the 70's, that Culver had also changed his views on issues over the years. In those years, he said that he'd decided his current plan would be better and more effective. If it comes down to a close race and a tough political fight with Jim Nussle (the republican candidate), Mike Blouin will certainly have what it takes.
I'm not too worried about Iowa if any of these three men are elected governor.
With that said, I support Ed Fallon. Chet Culver seems to be involved a little bit with big interests/companies, and I thought that Mike Blouin had the least clearly defined plan. Fallon is also going to fight for the people, and he was the only one who kept everything positive. Culver and Blouin seemed to be taking little jabs at each other the whole time. He has a clearly defined, good plan for the state, and he will stay away from large companies and sources of money.
If you missed the big debate (which you probably did), IPTV will run it again tomorrow (Sunday) at 6 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I saw a debate on KWWL a couple weeks ago between these guys but also included that Akbar Muhammed Muhammed guy. I preferred Fallon in that one too. I just don't trust a guy named "Chet."
Post a Comment