Atlantic Monthly Pooh-Poohs Our GOTV Efforts, Blames Secretive Gay Agenda Conspiracy
February 13th, 2007 at 10:40pm Chase Martyn
I have to admit something right up top: I am a reluctant subscriber to the Atlantic (Monthly). It came free as some credit card rewards program, so I get it. I’m not always proud of it, but whatever.
So when a fellow IowaProgress team member told me that I should check out the March issue for a mention of the local State House race here last year (between Democrat Eric Palmer and ousted Republican Danny Carroll), I was pleased to find it already sitting on my coffee table. Then I started reading it (online version here), and even before I finished the second sentence, I knew I wasn’t going to be happy. Here’s how writer Joshua Green begins:
A tough loss can be hard to swallow, and plenty of defeated politicians have been known to grumble about sinister conspiracies. When they are rising stars like Danny Carroll, the Republican speaker pro tempore of Iowa’s House of Representatives, and the loss is unexpected, the urge to blame unseen forces can be even stronger—and in Carroll’s case, it would have the additional distinction of being justified.
Yes, Danny Carroll was a rising star, victimized by “unseen forces” at work in House District 75. Perhaps had Carroll simply leaned on this leading consulting firm a little more, he would’ve won. But these “unseen forces” at work weren’t ghosts, ghouls, or the powerful anti-pumpkin lobby, it was something of a gay political stealth force (led by this man), out to get good little homophobes like Danny.
Yes, it is true that Eric Palmer got money from out-of-state donors, and perhaps some of them are gay. Some of them are also probably straight. Many out-of-state donors give money to one person hoping that their opponent will lose, and many of them do so on the basis of the different candidates’ political positions. Danny Carroll got money from such donors (although much of it was channeled through Christopher Rants’s PAC), as did Eric Palmer. This is not news.
It seems that even Danny himself didn’t think there was anything to this story at first. In fact, Danny probably had the right idea before the reporter tried to change his interview subject’s mind mid-interview. This paragraph is the kicker:
Carroll was just sitting down to dinner but agreed to talk about his loss, which he attributed to the activism of Grinnell College students. A suggestion that he’d been targeted by a nationwide network of wealthy gay activists was met with polite midwestern skepticism.
Yup, that’s right: Danny’s pretty sure it was us. We’re pretty sure it was us. And the number of college students who voted for Eric Palmer is remarkably close to the number of votes Danny lost by. But Joshua Green still blames the gays. Green convinces Danny to look at the IECDB reports from the 2006 race, and here’s where things go from there:
Scrolling through the thirty-two-page roster of campaign contributors revealed plenty of $25 and $50 donations from nearby towns like Oskaloosa and New Sharon. But a $1,000 donation from California stood out on page 2, and, several pages later, so did another $1,000 from New York City. “I’ll be darned,” said Carroll. “That doesn’t make any sense.” As we kept scrolling, Carroll began reading aloud with mounting disbelief as the evidence passed before his eyes. “Denver … Dallas … Los Angeles … Malibu … there’s New York again … San Francisco! I can’t—I just cannot believe this,” he said, finally. “Who is this guy again?”
Eric Palmer got $1,000 from New York?!?!?! And more donations from Dallas and Denver?!?!?! Shucks! I guess that means Eric won because of the gay agenda then.
Seriously, though, how is this puff piece journalism? People with certain interests donate to political campaigns across the country all the time, on both sides. Not everyone knows why every donor donates, and in many cases the candidates don’t even know what a donor’s agenda might be. It isn’t like Eric had a huge resource advantage over Danny, either. It may be sensational because a few of Palmer’s donors were gay, but it is certainly nothing new.
If this was our 15 minutes of national media fame, I’m going to be very disappointed.
Related Posts
- A Universal Problem
- What would Boswell vs Fallon mean?
- A Media Engineered Election
- 419 Grinnell Votes in with a Month to Spare
- The Tragedy of Russell, Iowa
Entry Filed under: Miscellaneous, Campaign 2006, Iowa Legislature, Opinion, State Politics, Voting Rights, Campus Democrats, Republican Party
Related Searches: sinister conspiracies, state house race, speaker pro tempore, christopher rants, state donors
5 Comments Add your own
1. JW | February 14th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
I’m no Danny Carroll fan, but I find this sort of outside influence of money in politics distressing. It happens in both parties and often. I can’t understand why anybody wouldn’t be distressed by huge chunks of outside money being contributed to what is basically a local race in the Grinnell area. I would rather that the students of Grinnell College swayed the election, even if they are going to be gone before Eric Palmer’s first term ends.
2. Making a difference at Po&hellip | February 15th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
[…] read this Iowa Progress post. Danny Carroll originally blamed the Grinnell College Democrats for his loss in HD-35, where Eric […]
3. Cathy | February 15th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
If Danny Carroll is called a rising star then I’d hate to see what they call a sinking ship.
4. Mark | February 16th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
It was an interesting article, to be sure. Personally (as someone who was directly involved in the Palmer campaign) I think it was much more than “dollars” that made the difference.
Grinnell College students were instrumental in helping recruit volunteers, set-up phone banks, and canvass throughout Mahaska & Poweshiek County. They also contributed heavily throughout the entire 3rd CD.
Yet, when you get down to it - Rep. Carroll couldn’t carry his base. Mahaska County is HEAVILY Republican, but Rep. Carroll only carried Mahaska County by less than 100 votes. For a Democrat to nearly WIN in Mahaska County really says something. Mr. Palmer outperformed both Governor Culver and Congressman Boswell in Mahaska County.
Now, for JW - the influence of money in politics is troubling. The interesting comparison is the number of INDIVIDUAL vs. PAC donors to the Palmer and Carroll campaigns. Rep. Carroll was heavily favored as an incumbent and member of the Republican leadership. He raised over $100,000 in this race - and the majority was PAC money.
5. Ben | February 16th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
As IDP Regional Field Director, I agree with Mark. Eric’s peformance in Mahaska County really made the difference, helped a lot by Mark’s hard work. Also, the huge Cedar-White Oak absentee numbers didn’t hurt. Mark’s also right that Grinnell College students made a huge contribution too.
But, in the end, only reason that Danny Carroll lost was Danny Carroll. He was out of touch with his district and was a symbol of the Republican culture of corruption in Washington and in Des Moines. People were ready for a change and Eric Palmer offered that change. Danny Carroll just offered the continuation of a legacy of failure and divisiveness.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed