Why Iowa Dems Should Back Franken

Click HERE for Nicholas Johnson, "Mike Franken is a Democrat with Statewide Appeal," Iowa City Press Citizen, May 18, 2022, p. A7.

Click HERE for two-minute video, "Johnson Endorses Admiral Mike Franken," Aug 5, 2022.

Franken Experienced in D.C. Government
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, May 29, 2022, p. C2
I’ve often supported losing candidates whose utopian hopes aligned with mine. Everything being equal, I’ve chosen women candidates.

Today things aren’t equal.

Not this primary. Not among Iowa Democrats’ U.S. Senate choices. All Iowans will benefit from having a Democrat join our Republican. Plus, there’s much each senator can do for Iowa – whichever party controls the Senate.

For winning, the strongest candidate is former Admiral Mike Franken, hands down. He already knows Washington, with personal experience in the Senate, White House and Pentagon. His leadership skills have been recognized and rewarded. He will immediately have the respect of the other senators. [Photo credit: "Franken for Iowa" Facebook page.]

Most important in winning, Franken was raised and shaped by Western Iowa.

Republican majorities carry 93 of our 99 counties. Democrats need a goal of a more statewide political party.

Based on my time in Ida County, and in north central Iowa during my 1974 congressional primary, Mike Franken’s demeanor, record, common sense, and ties to the people in small town western Iowa will help Iowa’s Democrats reach that goal.

Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City

SOURCES
Franken’s “experience in the Senate, White House and Pentagon. His leadership skills have been recognized and rewarded.”

“In Washington, D.C., he served a fellowship in congressional affairs for the Office of the Secretary of the Navy; as the political-military chair in the Chief of Naval Operations' Executive Panel, in Navy's Plans and Strategy Deep Blue staff; in the Assessments Division in support of Navy's representation in the Joint Requirements Oversight Council and in the Joint Staff's Joint Operations Division overseeing U.S. Pacific Command operations. He presented the worldwide orders book to Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from 2003 to 2005 and was the first military officer to serve as a legislative fellow for Senator Ted Kennedy.[4]” “Michael T. Franken,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_T._Franken

“Franken earned a bachelor’s degree in engineering, a master’s degree from the College of Physics at the Naval Postgraduate School and professional studies at MIT, UVA’s Darden School of Business, and the Brookings Institute.[1] Franken was a member of the U.S. Navy. He retired from military service as a three-star admiral in 2017.[1] Franken worked in a variety of positions in Washington, D.C. He was the first military officer on Senator Ted Kennedy’s staff. He also worked in the U.S. Department of Defense.” “Michael Franken,” BallotPedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Michael_Franken

“He saw sea duty in four navy destroyers, a destroyer squadron, and an aircraft carrier. He deployed frequently to the world’s hotspots and was the first commanding officer of the USS WINSTON S CHURCHILL. He has significant Pentagon experience beginning with a legislative tour with Senator Edward Kennedy, and then in multiple strategy, policy, and planning positions involving the Indo-Pacific, the Middle East, Europe, and Africa. In these uncertain times with our democracy under attack, Iowans need Admiral Mike Franken in the US Senate. Through his work in the US Navy and at the Pentagon, Mike knows the global challenge of Russian aggression, and the propaganda and disinformation tactics used by Vladmir Putin. . . . Michael Franken has dedicated his life to serving our country and doing what’s right. Franken was the only voice on a team of military advisers to oppose George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Franken served under President Barack Obama and oversaw numerous successful missions to protect our country including leading U.S. forces in Africa to fight terrorists and pirates.” Franken for Iowa, https://frankenforiowa.com/about/

“raised and shaped by Western Iowa.” “Franken was born the youngest of nine children in rural Sioux County, Iowa. His father was a machinist and blacksmith. His mother was a school teacher. He joined the navy at age 22 at the urging of an older brother.[9] In 1989, Franken married his wife Jordan. Together, they have two children.[10] Franken lives in downtown Sioux City, Iowa.” “Michael T. Franken,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_T._Franken

“Franken was born in Sioux County, Iowa. He was one of nine children. During his youth, Franken worked alongside his father at the Lebanon Farm Shop, working with farm equipment and trucks. When he was 17 years old, Franken began working at Sioux Preme Packing Company to pay for college. He also worked as bar manager, math tutor, bouncer, and as a law firm’s civil engineer.” “Michael Franken,” BallotPedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Michael_Franken

“Mike grew up working in his father’s small machine shop where he ran a lathe, did welding, and helped with general implement repair. He was a hired hand for neighboring farms until, at the age of 17, he began a three-year-stint working at a slaughterhouse in Sioux Center, Iowa. He obtained a Navy scholarship in 1978 and graduated in engineering from the University of Nebraska. . . . His life in Lebanon, Iowa has taught him the values of community, family, faith, and rural life, which guides his efforts to invest and build in rural Iowa. . . . As the father of a child with disabilities, he has seen how inconsistent care can be in years where he was transferred 17 different times. She would have great support in one community and the next there would be no support. For his daughter and for veterans who were injured, he seeks to pick up the banner of former Senator Tom Harkin as a disability advocate.” “Franken for Iowa,” https://frankenforiowa.com/about/

“Republican majorities carry 93 of our 99 counties.” Trump carried 93 of 99 Iowa counties in 2020. “Donald Trump Won in Iowa,” Politico, Jan. 6, 2021, https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/iowa/

# # #
Mike Franken is a Democrat with Statewide Appeal
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press Citizen, May 18, 2022, p. A7
I’ve often supported losing candidates whose utopian hopes align with mine. Everything being equal, I choose the woman candidate. But things aren’t equal.

Not this year, not with Iowa Democrats’ U.S. Senate primary choices. It’s too important that Iowa have one Democratic senator. There’s much they can do for Iowa, even if Republicans control the Senate.

For winning, the strongest candidate is former Admiral Mike Franken, hands down. He’s already had Senate experience.

It’s worrisome Abby Finkenauer didn’t have a surplus of nomination signatures, and that she burned through 95% of her early successful fundraising.

Well over 90% of House members are re-elected. Finkenauer is not in that percentage. An inability to get reelected in an eastern Iowa district doesn’t bode well for getting elected statewide.

Donald Trump carried 93 of Iowa’s 99 counties. Democrats need a statewide following and party.

Based on my time in Ida County, and in north-central Iowa during my 1974 congressional primary, I believe Franken’s demeanor and ties to the people in smalltown western Iowa will help reach that goal.

Once in Washington, he will immediately enjoy the respect of the other senators.

Nicholas Johnson, Iowa City

# # #

Meaning of May Elections for November

May 19, 2010, 2:30 p.m.
[For BP disaster see, "Obama As Finger-Pointer-In-Chief," May 18, 2010; "Big Oil + Big Corruption = Big Mess," May 10, 2010; "P&L: Public Loss From Private Profit," May 3, 2010.]

What's Take-Away from May 18 Primary Elections?
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
There were four elections yesterday, one each in Arkansas and Kentucky, and two in Pennsylvania. What do their outcomes tell us about November we didn't know before?

Very little.

What follows is just one, relatively uninformed, blogger's intuition; not the result of having worked in any of the campaigns, memorized the piles of polling data, or even having read a significant amount of others' commentary.

There are some things we at least thought we knew before the results were in.

"All politics is local." There are so many factors that help shape the outcome of a given congressional or senatorial primary, or general election, that drawing any national (or even local!) generalizations from their outcomes runs the risk of being wide of the mark.

Especially is this so in light of the fact that most outcomes are relatively close. When there are less than 10 points separating the candidates anything from cold or rainy weather to a last-minute news item could have made the difference. In such cases, for purposes of deriving meaning from an election, it's a little silly even to designate a "winner" and "loser," let alone to discard from consideration the "meaning" behind the votes of the 40 percent or more of the voters who supported the "loser."

An incumbent President's party tends to lose seats in the Senate and House during off-year elections.

Aside from that, incumbents tend to get re-elected. No matter how angry the public is with "Congress" in general, voters tend to think their own Member of Congress is OK. The number of Members who want to be re-elected, and are, is generally well above 90 percent.

Most districts are solidly either Democrat or Republican. The real contests occur in the ones that are neither.

Perhaps the largest percentage of voters consider themselves "independent" or third party.

On the other hand, those who vote in party primaries are necessarily more partisan, more concerned about party loyalty, candidates having "paid their dues" to the party, and the impact of primary choices on general election outcomes.

Overall election results tend to reflect the economy. When the economy is trending down, or seems stuck there, voters want "change" -- often manifested in ousting incumbents. When the economy is booming, or clearly recovering, they're less likely to "throw the rascals out" -- or even bother to vote.

Lengthy incumbency cuts both ways. There is at least a lingering concern on the part of voters that "old age" and too many decades in Washington may make an elected official less, rather than more, effective on their behalf. (This is, of course, offset by the increased power, and ability to help the state or district, that comes with seniority.) But it is especially so if constituents detect (whether true or not) a growing disconnect between the Washington elite lifestyle of the elected official and that of the residents of the local area.

My thinking is that nothing happened yesterday to change any of that conventional wisdom.

But there are two conclusions that at least some commentators seem to be drawing from yesterday's returns with which I really disagree. One is that the results reflect a turn to the right, a resurgence of conservatism -- and hope for the Republicans in November. The other is that what we witnessed was an anti-incumbent movement. (E.g., Jeff Zeleny and Carl Hulse, "Specter Defeat Signals a Wave Against Incumbents," New York Times, May 19, 2010, p. A1.)

Sestak's Victory Over Senator Arlen Spector: An Example of "Anti-Establishment, Anti-Incumbency"?

Voters are not in a good mood -- whether discouraged, depressed, angry or violent. Admittedly, that did not cut in favor of Spector's re-election.

But there were so many other factors at play in Spector's case that I think it is woefully overly simplistic to put the results in the "anti-incumbency" column.

For starters, he got 47 percent of the vote. That's not exactly a rout.

Bear in mind, this was a Republican Senator running in a Democratic Party primary! He only recently switched parties, and acknowledged he did it because there was no way he was going to get the Republican Party nomination. The switch enabled the winner, Congressman Joe Sestak to utilize a very effective commercial that left few if any Democrats unaware of Sestak's assertion that Specter was just a Republican opportunist.

Moreover, he was a five-term, 30-year, 80-year-old Senator. The political meaning from the ouster of a one-term incumbent Senator is one thing. But when a Senator has served as long as Specter, and has reached 80 years of age, to be voted out of office involves much more than mere "anti-incumbency."

Admittedly, "'close' only counts in horseshoes," and it really hurts to lose an election. But for what it's worth, under the circumstances, and against all the odds, Specter should take some considerable personal solace and satisfaction from the 47 percent vote of confidence, admiration, and appreciation that he was able to win as an 80-year-old Republican running in a Democratic primary.

How About Senator Blance Lincoln in Arkansas?

The meaning of the outcome in the Democratic Primary in Arkansas is a little more clear cut than the one in Pennsylvania. But it's still not unambiguous -- especially with regard to the assertions that yesterday's four elections represent a "swing to the conservative right" on the part of voters.

For starters, Lincoln "won" in the sense that she got more votes than the runner-up, Arkansas Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter -- just not enough to prevent the need for a runoff, since she did not get 50 percent.

Second, the winner of the Republican Primary election, John Boozman, who defeated seven opponents, has been an Arkansas Representative in Congress since 2001. So that can scarcely be said to be the result of an "anti-establishment, anti-incumbent" vote.

Did Lincoln's failure to win outright illustrate the voters' move to the conservative right? No, the fact is that in her case it was exactly the opposite.

The SEIU and AFL-CIO weighed in heavily on the side of Halter precisely because she was perceived as being too conservative -- especially with her votes against healthcare reform, and her perceived support of the Wall Street banks. The voters wanted a more liberal candidate.

Republicans vs. Democrats in Congressman Jack Murtha's District

Following Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha's death, the only election yesterday pitting a Republican against a Democrat was in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District.

If an overwhelming Republican victory anywhere could have been seen as a harbinger of a national tectonic shift to the conservative right and a Republican sweep of the House in November it would have been this one.

On the other hand, the same could be said for the Democrats were they to win. Even though the 12th had been a Democratic district with Murtha, it also happens to be a district that went for Senator McCain over Obama a mere 18 months ago.

However conservative the district may be said to be, the majority did not vote for the Republican. The Democrat, Mark Critz (a former Murtha aide), won over a Republican businessman, Tim Burns, by a substantial 53 to 45 percent.

Incumbency was not in issue in that contest. But the issue of a possible shift -- from the Democratic Party, to a pro-conservative, Republican Party -- certainly was. And the verdict on that race would have to be that it just wasn't there for the conservative Republicans..

Paul's Win is Republicans' Problem -- Not Nation's or Democrats'

Rand Paul, son of Presidential candidate and Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.), scored a 24-point Republican Senate primary victory over Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson -- the favorite of the Republican establishment, up to and including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Thus, while it contributes nothing to an understanding of "anti-incumbency" (as neither held the Senate office), it certainly does say something about the division within the Republican Party between the Republican establishment and the anti-Establishment, Tea Party, wing of opposition.

Given that this was a Republican Primary it necessarily tells us little about the conservative, anti-Establishment leanings of Democrats and Independents. Indeed, there are those who believe that Paul will be much easier for the Democratic Party candidate to beat than Trey Grayson would have been. And Tea Party membership, to the extent it can be measured, seems to be disproportionately made up of those who would otherwise be (or still are) Republicans.

But we scarcely needed this Primary to know that there is a schism between the conservative, right wing, take no prisoners, anything to bring down Obama, just say no wing of the GOP, and the Establishment, moderate, reasonable, come let us reason together wing. Nor have we been unaware that the former seems to be gaining adherents over the latter.

In sum, they were an interesting four elections, but when Chris Matthews says, "Tell me something I don't know," I'm not sure what one can offer based on the results.
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #