Conlin’s Candidacy: Good for Grassley?
- Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 4:23
- Iowa, News Center, Top Story
- 1,042 views
- 15 comments
It’s hard to believe, but Senator Grassley is probably thankful that Roxanne Conlin, a millionaire liberal trial attorney from Des Moines, is expected to be his Democratic opponent next fall. The possibility of Conlin being the Democrats’ candidate against Grassley next fall became more likely yesterday when Christy Vilsack said he would not run for the U.S. Senate. If Conlin successfully navigates the primary, she will be the most formidable candidate that Sen. Grassley has faced since first being elected to United States Senate in 1980.
Senator Grassley has seen his normally stellar approval rating among Iowans slip in 2009. In February of this year, Grassley’s approval rating according to a Survey USA Poll stood at a pristine 71 percent. Since that time, however, Grassley’s approval numbers have fallen to a more pedestrian 50% in Survey USA’s most recent poll.
While Iowa Democrats are salivating over the thought that Grassley may be vulnerable, Grassley’s approval rating is much stronger than Governor Culver’s and Sen. Harkin’s. Grassley’s 50 percent approval is four points higher than President Obama in Iowa, six points higher than Sen. Harkin, and nine points than Governor Chet Culver’s. More Iowans disapprove of the job that Obama, Harkin, and Culver are doing than approve, while only 40 percent disapprove of the job Senator Grassley is doing.
The Survey USA tracking polls have shown that all Iowa incumbents have seen their approval numbers slide since the beginning of 2009. Grassley’s slide in approval rating can be attributed to three factors. First, the current political climate is anti-incumbent. Second, Grassley’s early negations with the Obama administration on health care reform raised questions with some in the Republican Party. In fact, only 65 percent of Iowa Republicans currently approve of the job Senator Grassley is doing. Third, Grassley’s late criticism and vote against the Senate health care bill has made him a target of President Obama and the Democrats.
With Senator Grassley taking heat from all sides, it should come as no surprised that his job approval numbers have suffered in the polls. During the August recess, Grassley began to reach out and assure Iowans that he does not support the government running the health care system. His vote against the Baucus Health care bill should also help Grassley in the polls.
The emergence of a liberal opponent will also give Grassley the ability to rally Republicans and independent voters around his re-election campaign. Running against a liberal trial lawyer should allow Grassley to solidify his Republican base while also being able to reach out to independent voters. While Roxanne Conlin has never held elective office and thus doesn’t have a voting record, her list of clients provides Senator Grassley will plenty of ammunition for his re-election campaign. In fact, Conlin owns the web address www.somepeoplejustneedtobesued.com. That web address directs people to the website for her law firm. It is likely that Grassley will make tort reform a major issue in his race if Conlin wins the Democratic Primary.
In addition to being a millionaire liberal trial attorney, the differences between Conlin and Grassley couldn’t be more different.
Grassley is from rural Iowa. Conlin is from Des Moines.
Grassley is pro-life. Conlin is pro-choice.
Grassley supports traditional marriage. Conlin supports gay rights.
Grassley is pro-business. Conlin sues businesses.
Grassley is hated by the Obama administration. Conlin would serve as a rubber stamp for their efforts.
What has many Iowa Democrats excited about Conlin’s candidacy is that she brings a lot of personal wealth with which she can fund her campaign. Just yesterday, the Des Moines Register published an article that mentioned how Conlin’s campaign will help the Iowa Democratic Party pay for its coordinated campaign.
Conlin was one of the lead attorneys who filed a class action lawsuit against Microsoft. The legal fees for that case topped $75 million in Iowa alone. She has the personal wealth to fund most of her campaign against Grassley if she chooses to do so. A well funded opponent would be something Grassley hasn’t had to deal with since defeating Sen. John Culver in 1980. Art Small, Grassley’s last opponent, spent a total of $132,503.00 in in 2004. Grassley easily won re-election and received over 70 percent of the vote.
Conlin has already pledged not to take any contributions from political action committees or special interest groups. That means her entire campaign will be funded by contributions from individuals or from herself.
While it’s easy to see why Iowa Democratic Chairman Mike Kiernan recruited Conlin to run against Senator Grassley, it looks like Conlin would be the best thing that could happen to Grassley. I’m sure he would rather run against no-name candidates like Art Small who can’t even raise enough money to run television ads, but in this environment, Grassley, an entrenched incumbent, needs formidable candidate to campaign against.
A spirited U.S. Senate campaign could also be good for down ticket Republicans. Grassley will undoubtedly be forced to spend money building a statewide grassroots organization that would benefit Republicans up and down the ballot. With a liberal like Conlin sharing the top of the ticket with an unpopular incumbent governor in Chet Culver, Iowa Republicans might benefit from coattails for the first time in years. 2010 is starting to look even better for Iowa Republicans.
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 700 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
15 Comments on “Conlin’s Candidacy: Good for Grassley?”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
” In fact, Conlin owns the web address http://www.somepeoplejustneedtobesued.com. That web address directs people to the website for her law firm. ”
Oh, this is gonna’ be fun!!!!
This spin is not even imaginative. “I’m sure he would rather run against no-name candidates like Art Small”. Uh, duh….. Look, I know she probably won’t beat him, but you know damn well that having a woman spending millions on the top of our ticket is nothing but upside for us.
I absolutely love how you put in your article the following: “Grassley supports traditional marriage. Conlin supports gay rights.”
If you were completely honest, you would write: “Conlin supports gay rights. Grassley supports denying gay people rights.”
No, it should have read, “Grassley supports traditional marriage. Conlin supports judicial activism and capitulation to the extremist homosexual lobby even though what they lobby for is a danger to them and their children, and adversely affects society-at-large.”
No Republican writer should be using the term “gay rights.”
Correction: No HONEST writer should be using the term “gay rights.”
(No offense to Craig R. intended.)
Ouch! Peggy, that was a scorcher. Truth can hurt though. Keep it up. Very well said.
Peggy, honestly, it would be hard to have a conversation with you. Wanting for all human beings to have the same rights is not “extremist.” However, due to our society being caught in the grips of 1) homophobes, 2) racists, and in general 3) evangelical Christians, sometimes judges need to step in to the right thing (see Brown vs. Board of Education, or do you hate black people too?). And as far as gay people being “a danger to children,” that is just an ignorant comment, no more than saying “senior citizens are dangers to children.” And please tell us specific examples how homosexuals are a danger for the society at large.
Can I marry my siblings and parents? Why not? I love them.
Deace – you make a good point that I’d like to elaborate on. There are rules in our society as to who we can and cannot marry. And they are around mainly for three reasons: 1) there is an unhealthy power dynamic in the relationship, 2) one person would be harmed in the relationship, or 3) an offspring from that relationship would be genetically harmed. For example, a 30yo man cannot marry a 5yo girl, because that would harm the little girl both psychologically and most likely physically. A mother cannot marry her son because that would both have an unhealthy power dynamic in that relationship, and the offspring would have inbred genetic characteristics. A man cannot marry a donkey because a donkey is not a human and has no rights. So, Deace, you cannot marry your siblings or your parents because you would have an unhealthy power dynamic, this would possibly harm one of the parties (depending on the ages) and also your offspring would be genetically inbred. However, what our society does permit is two loving, consenting adults to enter into an eternal bond: this has nothing to do with male or female, but two loving partners (or procreation, two loving consenting adults who are 60yo can be married while they cannot have kids).
“However, what our society does permit is two loving, consenting adults to enter into an eternal bond: this has nothing to do with male or female, but two loving partners” -iarational
IR,
Our “society” permits no such thing. Same sex marriage has an 0-31 record when voted on by the people. Iowans will follow suit when given the chance.
Peggy, you miss the point entirely. There is nothing wrong with two loving adults – be it male-male, or male-female, from having a loving, supporting relationship. Your saying that two females being together is “wrong” has no more validity than your saying a black man and a white woman shouldn’t be together, just because the majority of the population is against it. Tell me this: do you think that the decision of the Supreme Court to allow interracial marriage, even though a majority of states outlawed it at the time, was “wrong”?
ia(ir)rational,
People have no control whatsoever as to the color of their skin at birth so to deprive them of something based on that is wrong. It’s a genetic characteristic, not a behavior.
A black man and a white woman have the anatomical complementarity to mate. Two people of the same sex don’t.
Apples and oranges, my friend.
There is also no physical danger present in an interracial relationship, provided their slate is clean going in. The same can not be said for a same sex couple.
Peggy – thank you for answering the question. First of all, you are correct in that people have no control over the color of their skin. In addition, people have no choice over their sexual orientation. Second of all, “mating” as you call it, is not a prerequisite of marriage – see older couples, or younger barren heterosexual couples – they are not barred from marrying. Third of all, though you answered my question, you then threw in a hateful, unsupported comment: “(the lack of physical danger) can not be said for a same sex couple”. You have absolutely no basis to prove that, anymore than my saying that there is inherent danger in interracial couples. Yet again, you made an unsupported statement out of bigotry and hate. As always, you Republicans are on the wrong side of history – your children and grandchildren will look at your stance on homosexuality as a relic of hateful culture, just as one would look at their racist great-grandparents with pity.
As a side note, what amazes me is that our culture supports points of views like Peggy’s – if I were to say the exact same things as her, but said them about black people, I would be deemed a crazy racist, and my only place would be in the KKK. Major political organizations know that spewing racist messages are political suicide. However, it is for some reason acceptable to spew hatred about gays and lesbians, and this viewpoint is not only embraced, but enthusiastically supported by the Republican party.