U.S. Rep. Tom Latham, R-Ames

The overwhelming defeat left many observers scratching their heads and wondering what happened. President Obama won the district by 8 points and carried all but one of the counties. Twelve of the district’s 20 state House members are Democrats, along with eight of its 10 state senators.

“This is a Democratic district,” said Tom Harrington, chairman of the 4th District Democratic Central Committee.

At the end of the day, the race came down to money and organization, two things the campaign of Democratic candidate Becky Greenwald didn’t have. But going into 2010, Democrats are working to avoid repeating mistakes from years past.

The district’s Democratic central committee has formed a task force charged with finding a Democrat who can make a strong run against Latham in 2010. Co-chaired by two former candidates for Congress, Selden Spencer and Kurt Meyer, the group is actively recruiting candidates and attempting to lay the groundwork for a successful campaign.

“We haven’t had this type of work being done this early in the last three cycles,” Harrington said. “We’re hoping that by organizing early, helping find good candidates and having this infrastructure in place for them that it will be a big leg up over what past candidates have had.”

Meyer, who placed second in the district’s 2008 primary, said the task force’s organizing and fundraising goals will build off of each other.

“We want to find the best possible candidate and we want to make the nomination worth having by putting together an organization and a fundraising pool that someone could step into right away,” he said. “I think both of these goals make the other easier, meaning a good candidate will motivate people to come out and get involved and an organized party will help draw out the best candidates.”

Rather than spending time “ferreting out possible campaign donors or volunteers,” whomever the party nominates will be able to jump right into the race to unseat Latham, Meyer said.

“That keeps the candidate from spending months doing the things that are necessary but mundane,” he said. “The party organization in the 4th district traditionally has been a county-by-county organization. There has not been a lot of coordination. This year, we have put more emphasis on thinking earlier in the game about what we can and should do to advance a successful congressional campaign.”

The party isn’t trying to avoid a primary, Harrington said. In fact, he expects there to be a hotly contested race for the party’s nomination.

“We’re just here to encourage all the best candidates to get into the race,” he said. “The party will remain neutral until we have a candidate.”

The goal is also to avoid mistakes that have been made in the past, Harrington said. Democrats have been slow to jump into the race in previous years, something that hurt them in the general election.

“I’d love to see someone jump in by late summer or early fall,” he said.

Another mistake, Meyer said, is focusing too much on whether the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee will get involved in the race. In the past, he said, candidates have made decisions that were not based on how to win an election but rather on how to coax the DCCC into spending money in the district.

“I personally think we have to go about our business in a way that says if the DCCC jumps in, that’s great,” Meyer said. “But I think it can lead to what amounts to some peculiar thought patterns. You end up thinking you have to make the DCCC happy so that they will jump into the race. We have to rely on ourselves. No one from outside the district is going to ride in over the hill and pull our chestnuts out of the fire. We have to take care of our own destiny.”

While he didn’t mention Greenwald’s candidacy in 2008 specifically, many observers point to her campaign’s decision to spend a considerable amount of money on an early television advertising campaign to introduce herself to voters as a mistake. Most believe the move was designed to improve her polling numbers in an attempt to convince the DCCC the race was close enough to warrant their attention.

The plan didn’t work, the DCCC’s support never materialized, and while Greenwald was able to purchase a 60-second television ad the night of Barack Obama’s 30-minute national address, her campaign was left with no money in the final weeks of the race.

According to paperwork filed with the Federal Election Commission just before the election, Latham had $775,000 cash on hand compared to a little more than $25,000 for Greenwald, despite the fact that the Democrat outraised Latham in July, August and September. 

As of March 31, Latham has $113,944 cash on hand for his 2010 campaign.

“We are going to set our own course,” Meyer said. “If we do our job then it makes it more appealing for the DCCC to get involved, rather than sitting around crossing our fingers and devising a strategy to lure them into getting involved.”

Raising money in the 4th Congressional District has proven difficult in the past, Harrington said, since it is mostly made up of rural counties. That is why the party will be holding three fundraisers this August around the district in order to help support the congressional candidate for the 2010 fight.

“We really haven’t had the coordination across the district, which could help in a lot of ways, including fundraising,” he said. “Starting in August, we are holding three regional fundraisers for the south and central part in Ames, for the northwestern part of the district in Estherville and then the northeastern part in Decorah.”

Both Meyer, who ran in the 2008 Democratic primary, and Greenwald said they have not ruled out another run, but have not decided whether they will jump into the race again. But Meyer said his candidacy is not why he got involved in the task force, saying he just wants the best candidate to step forward.

“I think there are some really good candidates out there,” he said. “I really hope some of them would be interested in running. I think we will find the strongest possible candidate.”

Overall, Latham draws support from 47 percent of likely voters in the 4th district, while Greenwald draws support from 42 percent.  11 percent of likely voters said they were undecided.

Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, leads Sen. Barack Obama, his Democratic opponent, by a similar margin in the 4th district — 46-42.

That Greenwald has pulled within the margin of error in a public poll is an accomplishment in itself.  In 2006, a strong Democratic year, Latham defeated Democrat Selden Spencer by 14 percentage points.

Republican Tom Latham and Democrat Becky Greenwald.

In a statement released this morning, Latham attacked challenger Becky Greenwald for saying she would have voted for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill passed earlier this month if she were in Congress, a bill Latham opposed.

“Reckless Wall Street CEO’s made a mess and they asked Iowans to pay to clean it up,” Matt Hinch, Latham’s spokesman, said in a statement. “Tom Latham stood up in Congress and protected Iowans by twice voting no on this massive Wall Street bailout. Tom Latham believes that, as a matter of principle, it is wrong to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to reward, benefit and bailout those on Wall Street who created this mess.”

The move to directly attack Greenwald is a change in direction for the Latham campaign, which had been focusing on their candidate’s achievements in Congress. It could also be a signal of just how seriously the Latham campaign is taking Greenwald’s challenge. In recent weeks, Greenwald’s campaign has received attention from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the endorsement of EMILY’s List, which funds Democratic women candidates who support abortion rights.

Greenwald spokeswoman Erin Seidler said the Democrat supported the bailout bill because “the risk of doing nothing was greater than the risk of doing something,” saying the bill is helping to put a floor under the crisis. She also noted that the bill provides $4.6 billion in flood relief for Iowa, a child income tax credit, a renewable-energy tax credit, and alternative minimum tax relief.

It was Latham’s years of support for deregulation of the financial markets that led to the crisis, Seidler said, calling Latham’s opposition to the bailout the “politically expedient vote” and  “just another sign of a Washington politician making the easy choice in an election year.”

Greenwald has been on the attack for months now, even launching a Web site, ReplaceTomLatham.com, where Latham is referred to as “Iowa’s low-yielding congressman.”

But after facing off in two debates last week, in Des Moines on Monday and in Mason City on Friday, Greenwald has upped the ante, aggressively challenging Latham’s views on health care reform and saying he favors privatizing Social Security.

In both instances, Latham has been forced to respond and defend his positions, saying Greenwald is distorting his words and trying to mislead voters.

“The Greenwald for Congress campaign’s selective editing to mislead Iowans about what Congressman Latham does support is the type of partisan politics as usual of which voters have grown tired and fed up,” Latham’s campaign said in a statement.

Greenwald said the record is clear, especially in regard to Social Security.

“He says he opposes privatization, but he just uses Washington speak to hide his support for this risky scheme,” Greenwald said in a press release, citing Latham’s support for allowing private accounts within Social Security. “With this country in an economic crisis, we can’t put the Social Security safety net at risk in the markets.”

Latham said he has been accused of supporting privatization before, and that his campaign even offered a $10,000 check to anyone who could offer proof that he ever voted for or supported such a plan.

“We still have that check,” he said Friday during the Mason City debate.

The candidates are expected to face off one more time on Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press,” although a date has not yet been announced.

Democrat Becky Greenwald and Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Latham.

Greenwald, a seasoned behind-the-scenes politico who has spent little time in front of a microphone as a candidate, was graceful but tough.  She had lines of attack on her opponent ready, and she delivered them with clarity.  She knew how to let them hang in the air, avoiding the repetitiveness characteristic of a novice debater.

Latham, who has experience in Congress but has faced few truly close reelection campaigns, handled questions just as well, and with the deeper understanding of policy minutiae that incumbents always exhibit.

But Latham revealed his level of anxiety by going on the offense early and often, attacking Greenwald on taxes, health care, immigration and partisanship.  Rather than remain above the fray, Latham engaged his opponent as an equal.

That’s not something incumbents usually do if they have a comfortable lead.

On the issues

If the topics of debate are any indication of what 4th district voters are thinking, the economy, energy, health care, taxes, and the elusive notion of “bipartisanship” will decide the election.  Based on my notes, those are the five subjects that the candidates talked about the most.

The economy: The candidates have staked out positions on opposite sides of the $700 billion “rescue plan” (or “bailout”).  Greenwald supports it, and Latham voted against it.  Both candidates seem to see their positions as politically expedient, but political experts still aren’t sure how the bill will ultimately play with middle-class voters.

What we do know is that when the economy is the most important issue of a campaign, voters tend to gravitate toward the Democrat.  Advantage Greenwald.

Energy: Through 90 minutes of debating, neither candidate found a renewable energy idea worth opposing. Both candidates support an “all of the above approach” to energy, which means investing in a laundry list of technologies plus offshore oil drilling. Each seemed competent on the subject of energy, and both candidates tied renewable energy development to economic development.

But Latham also got to work in examples of federal funding he has secured for renewable energy projects here, even if that was never the focus of discussion.  Slight advantage Latham.

Health care: Greenwald and a sympathetic phone questioner both seemed to want to force Latham to pledge his support to Sen. John McCain’s health care plan, and they almost got their wish. But before Democrats could fire up the presses for a “Tom Latham wants to tax your employer-provided health care benefits” mailing, the incumbent hedged, saying he only supported the “principles” of McCain’s plan but that he couldn’t commit to anything.

Without McCain’s full plan, the only proposal to cut health care costs that Latham could name was a simple tax credit. Voters are pretty sure that health care reform is more complicated than that.

Greenwald, meanwhile, grabbed hold of Obama’s health care proposal, which is being featured in very moderate-sounding Obama campaign ads right now.  Democrats usually win on health care anyway, but in this debate, the differences between the two candidates were very clear.  Greenwald brought a more detailed proposal to the table, and she knew how to explain it.  Latham did not have the vocabulary to talk about the issue with the depth voters want.  Advantage Greenwald.

Taxes: Debates about tax policy are always more about accusations than they are about an individual candidate’s actual proposals. Latham and more than one phone questioner each asked Greenwald, roughly, “Why do you want to raise taxes?” Greenwald dealt with their questions with improved clarity each time.  By the end of the debate, she was able to make clear that she supports Obama’s tax plan, which only increases taxes on families earning over $250,000 per year.

But what Greenwald said about taxes will not matter, because any voter for whom taxes are the top issue is going to vote Republican. Advantage Latham.

Bipartisanship: There was a lot of talk of “partisanship” in Monday’s debate. Latham said he has a record of bipartisanship, and he accused Greenwald of negative campaigning. Greenwald said she would be bipartisan in Congress and accused Latham of voting with George W. Bush’s policies 95 percent of the time.

Latham’s rejoinder was that voting with George W. Bush 95 percent of the time is actually pretty good, and that Iowa’s Democratic congressmen vote with their party even more often than that. I’m not sure that holds water with voters. “Latham” and “Bush” in the same sentence always benefits Greenwald, no matter what the actual record is. Advantage Greenwald.

The final tally

Greenwald wins on points, largely because the policies she’s selling are more popular with voters than her opponent’s are these days.

But the bigger story is that it even came to this.  Latham and Greenwald engaged each other and debated as relative equals. We might just have a real race on our hands.

And one last thought to ponder: Latham is at odds with his party’s presidential nominee on the $700 billion “rescue plan,” on health care reform, on biofuels, and (presumably) on earmarks, given his seat on the Appropriations Committee. Meanwhile, Greenwald has embraced Obama’s proposals with open arms. That might tell us something about which presidential candidate has stronger coattails in the 4th district this year.

Update: The debate has concluded.

A liveblog of the event follows.  Find a more concise wrap-up here.

8:25 Closing statements

Greenwald: There are differences between her and her candidate.  Tom Latham’s record speaks for itself, and he has voted 95% of the time with George W. Bush.  “That is a partisan record, and I will go to Washington and listen to the people of the 4th district … and never forget who sent me there.”

“I really, truly understand” the troubles of the middle class.  “We need to make sure college is accessible.”

Latham: Loves WHO-Radio.  Points out that he has a lower partisan voting record than any of the Iowa’s Democrats.  “We’ve gotta get over this partisanship.”

“That’s why I’ve been successful with all of the initiatives I’ve put forth.”

Says he can go to almost any town in his district and see something he has earmarked for them.

—

8:20 Question from caller: Won’t tax increases on the rich be passed down to middle and lower income families?

Greenwald: If middle income families can receive tax benefits, that would free them up to spend more money on Main Street.  “The tax breaks for the wealthiest of us are not trickling down.”

“We need to rebuild our middle income families.”

Latham: Goes back to McCain’s health care plan: He supports parts of the plan, but he won’t commit.

Greenwald: Goes back to Obama’s tax plan, which she supports, and which she says would benefit everyone who makes under $250,000 per year.  And that’s most people in the 4th district.

—

8:17 Questions about oil and energy from phone caller.

Latham: “I have supported wind energy for years and years.  The folks in that business understand where I am.”

Greenwald: Says she supports more investment in renewable energy.

—

8:15 For each candidate: Would you vote for your party nominee’s health care plan?

Latham: Hasn’t looked at the details of McCain’s health care plan, so doesn’t want to say.  But he likes McCain’s plan to deduct health care costs.

Greenwald: Yes, she supports Obama’s health care plan.

—

8:12 Question from caller about affordable health care. Why should someone have to pay for other people’s health care?

Greenwald: Costs are skyrocketing, so “we are already being squeezed.”

Latham: It is not fair for people to have to pay for the health care of others.

Greenwald: It is a problem.  Half of all bankruptcies are caused at least in part by health care costs.

—

8:11 Question for Latham about military being deployed within the United States

Latham: “It is very illegal” to deploy troops within the United States.

—

8:09 Several questions from one call: Livelihood? Do you take money from Barney Frank, Charles Rangel, or Chris Dodd?

Greenwald: I worked for Pioneer Hybrid.  Background in agriculture.  To her knowledge, she has not received money from those three men.  90% of her contributions come from Iowans.

—-

8:07 Phone caller for Greenwald about abortion.

Greenwald: Wants abortions to be “safe, legal, and rare.”

Latham: “I’m 100% pro-life.”

That was quick.  Nobody wants to talk about abortion.

—

8:03 Phone caller says Americans are hostages of the IRS.  Says we should have “one straight tax.”  Or flat tax.

Greenwald: Supports simpler tax code, but right now we just have to “keep our heads above water.”

Latham: Also supports simpler tax code, but not sure about flat tax (right now).  Calls for a better national debate about it.

—

8:00 Break ends.  Caller says Greenwald is sounding “stiff.”  Accuses her of being a party hack, essentially.

Greenwald says she is running because she wants to listen to voters, not regurgitate partisan talking points.  Lots of anti-Greenwald callers.

—

7:53 Question from caller about health care: Does Greenwald support a single-payer health care system?

Greenwald: No, but she supports access for everyone.  “I very much support what Sen. Obama has been supporting” that “takes the best of both worlds.”  Emphasizes preventative care.

Latham: We need to work in a bipartisan way.  Supports pooling health care costs among businesses, making health insurance deductible.  Mentions shortage of nurses in Iowa, which he has put forth legislation to solve.  Also mentions inequity of medicare reimbursements in Iowa.

Greenwald: We’ve had a nursing story for a long time, and Latham waited too long to introduce a bill about it.

—

7:50 Question from phone caller for Latham: “Do you support keeping our troops in harm’s way in Iraq?”

Latham: “I am the first one to say let’s do it as quickly as possible,” but only after stability, etc.

“There has never been a system in place in Iraq” for buying things on the level of local government.

“I want to get our troops out of there with a successful” result.

Greenwald: Then why did Latham vote for funding as recently as June?

Latham: Has never voted ‘against the troops.’

—

7:47 Question from phone caller about partisanship, “didn’t quite get the answer out of Ms. Greenwald that I was hoping for.”  Greenwald’s web site has “often negative attacks.”

Greenwald: Disputes characterization of her communications.

Latham: Brings it back to Greenwald’s support of the bailout…

—

7:42 Question from phone caller about Becky Greenwald wanting to raise taxes.  (These are starting to sound like pretty obvious plants from Latham or his supporters…)

Greenwald: Tax cuts should go to “middle income families.”  Talks more about renewable energy and job creation.

Latham: Anyone who doesn’t want to extend the Bush tax credits doesn’t get it.  Taxing people more is “wrong.”  To raise taxes on small businesses “is simply the wrong thing to do.”

“To punish them for investing in their businesses — to punish them for hiring more people — is simply wrong.”

“And also you’d reinstate the death tax on everyone.”

Greenwald: Warren Buffet has said that the current tax system is unfair.

Latham: Warren Buffet will always find loopholes anyway.

7:38 Question from phone caller about price of gasoline and drilling:

Greenwald: Calls for “comprehensive” renewable energy policy.  Says driving a Flex-Fuel vehicle is nice, too.  Does not say yes or no to offshore drilling.

Latham: Says Greenwald didn’t answer the question, but he says his energy policy is an “all of the above” approach.

Emphasizes need for domestic oil supply.

Greenwald: Does agree with “all the options on the table” after all, she says.  But “only if we are committed to a comprehensive” renewable energy strategy.

—

7:33 Question from a phone caller:

“Would you have voted for this year’s Democratic budget” which purportedly raised taxes higher than ever?

Greenwald: Doesn’t want to say before she has seen the details.

Another question from a caller for Latham: Would you still support privatization for social security?

Latham: “Well I never have.”

Has never supported privatization of Social Security “in any way shape or form.”

Instead, supports a “Blue Ribbon Commission” for Social Security.

Greenwald: How can we talk about taking away entitlements “when people are needing it the most?”

Talks about universal health care, but doesn’t support socialized medicine.

Latham: Says he would never support cutting social security.

—

7:30 Greenwald asks Latham a question on immigration:

“We’ve had two raids in our district… Why didn’t he do something to lead us toward comprehensive immigration reform?” Greenwald asks, criticizing Latham for his inaction.

Latham: “This is rather interesting.  Even the immigration folks didn’t know that Postville was in the 4th District.” Says ICE didn’t even notify Latham “when they were gonna go in there.”

“There are some folks who want to give amnesty…” and Greenwald is one of them, Latham says.

“What happened in Marshalltown and Postville is a direct result of lack of enforcement of the laws for the last 20 years.”

Greenwald: Says she’s not for amnesty, but is for a clear path to legalization.

—

7:27 And the candidates get to ask questions of each other.

Latham “not really prepared” to ask a question, he says.  But he’s “somewhat surprised” with what he has seen on the internet and elsewhere.  Wants to know why Greenwald is going negative.

Greenwald: “What people are tired of is the hypocrisy of saying one thing in Iowa” and doing something different in Washington.

7:20 Third set of questions on foreign policy — Iraq and Afghanistan.

For Greenwald: How would you do things differently with regard for Iraq and Afghanistan?

Greenwald: First job out of college was working at a medical center for veterans.  “I understand what it takes” to take care of veterans.

“We need to be bringing our troops home from Iraq,” Greenwald says.

Afghanistan needs more troops.

“It is clear to me that by sending Tom Latham back to Congress that we will not begin the immediate and safe withdrawal of troops” from Iraq.

Latham: “Stay the course is not an option” because troops have done a good job.  “The ’surge’ has worked.”

“The Iraqi people are with us now.”

“We want to have our troops come out as soon as possible because we do have a real threat in Afghanistan.” But “The central front in the war on terror is — has been — in Iraq” but we’ve “driven them out” of Iraq now.

But Greenwald would vote for the bailout, which actually costs more than the Iraq war.  “I would never vote to take away funding for men and women in harms way.”

Greenwald chimes in: Why did you vote for a pay raise for yourself but not for soldiers?

Latham responds: “VFW just endorsed me.”

“No one has been a larger advocate” for people in uniform, Latham says.

Latham says there were no pay raise votes.  There were procedural votes that are construed to be pay raise votes.

—

7:16 Second set of questions on partisanship.

Greenwald first: Pledges to “make relationships from the beginning” with members of both parties, and accuses Latham of partisanship.

Latham: “This last congress has been by far the most partisan” he’s ever been a part of, he says.

Leadership writes bills “in a back room,” he says.

“All you have to do is look at my record … to see that the way you get things done is to do that on a bipartisan basis.”  Says Appropriations Committee does a good job at being bipartisan.

Says he hopes Congress will “wipe the slate clean” come January.  “I don’t think anyone’s ever heard me speak a partisan word out there.”

—-

7:10 First question is on the economy.

For Latham: Why did you vote against bailout?

Latham: Proposal had “no basis” for choosing $700 billion figure.  “There’s some oversight but with no teeth on that oversight.”

“It’s simply the wrong way to do it.”

For Greenwald: You said you would have voted for it.  Why?

Greenwald: “No one wants to vote and bail out CEOs who led a runaway train basically off a cliff.”

But Greenwald says she spoke to a voter on Main St. who said she would be affected by the economic problems, too.

“Make sure that we were doing what we could” rather than doing nothing.

Says Latham isn’t telling the truth about bipartisan record.  “He has voted 94% of the time with President Bush and the Republican party.”

Latham’s response: Thinks it’s strange that Greenwald’s first statement of policy was to give President Bush a blank check.  Says Congressmen Braley, Loebsack, and Boswell have more partisan voting records than he does, and that President Bush doesn’t actually vote, so Latham’s voting record couldn’t be compared to Bush’s.

“I understand we have to do something” to rescue the economy, but not this.

Greenwald’s response: There is accountability built into the bill including searchable online database.  Accuses Latham of “hypocrisy” for voting against the bailout even with flood relief attached.  Accuses Latham of turning his back on flood victims.

Latham: “There is no accountability.”  It will be out in the open, but no one can stop them from doing what they do.

—

7:07 Tom Latham’s opening statement:

Says Iowans “are fed up” with what’s going on in Washington, D.C.

Cites record for veterans, along with other earmarks.  “I am fortunate that I serve on the appropriations committee — that I am a ranking member on that committee.”

Emphasizes bipartisanship again.

7:06 Becky Greenwald gives her opening statement first.  Shout-out to her web site, BeckyGreenwald.com, right up front.

Emphasizes renewable fuels and rural economic issues.

7:05 And after the news, the debate begins.

Democrat Becky Greenwald speaks to the crowd at the Des Moines Register Soap Box at the Iowa State Fair in August (photo courtesy of Greenwald for Congress).

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee placed her campaign to unseat incumbent Rep. Tom Latham (R-Ames) on its “Emerging Races” list, which puts her within reach of additional resources as she tries to close a nearly 10-to-1 fundraising gap between herself and her opponent.

Then, EMILY’s List, a national organization dedicated to electing pro-choice women to public office, endorsed Greenwald, a fundraising and publicity shot in the arm.

And late last week, Greenwald took to the airwaves with her first television advertisement.

“I’m thrilled with the momentum we’re building,” Greenwald said.

But most importantly, support from the high-profile national organizations has brought attention to a race that most voters and media in the district have not been following closely, even though most agree that this year represents the Democrats’ best chance to defeat Latham.

Latham has proven himself an adept fundraiser and campaigner, cruising to victory in his recent challenges. Since the 2002 election, the first race that took place after district lines were redrawn based on the 2000 census, Latham has averaged about 60 percent of the vote.

But the demographics of the district have changed considerably in the past year, and now registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly 6,000. But even with a growing base and political conditions that favor Democrats, most observers felt early on (an still believe) that the DCCC must invest heavily in Greenwald’s campaign for Latham to feel much pressure.

In a previous Iowa Independent story, Latham’s opponent in 2002, John Norris, said the lack of participation by the national Democratic Party was one of the reasons he couldn’t carry the district. He simply couldn’t raise enough money to counter Latham’s attacks, he said.

“The DCCC and EMILY’s List up our profile nationally to groups who are interested in electing Democrats,” Greenwald said, adding: “We know we don’t need to match Latham [in fundraising]. We’ll have enough to get our message out to voters.”

Stepping up criticism of Latham

For now, Greenwald said she is focusing on introducing herself to voters around the district, but in the coming weeks she will begin to draw distinctions between herself and Latham.

“He’s been in Congress 14 years, 12 of those in the majority, and he has been a complete failure for voters in this district,” Greenwald said. “He’s done nothing to solve our problem with fuel prices, he’s done nothing to advance comprehensive immigration reform, and he’s simply out of touch with the needs of our district.”

The nation’s economic troubles have quickly become the central focus of the campaign, Greenwald said, as the level of anxiety among voters continues to rise.

“What we’ve seen recently is catastrophic and shows the worst aspects of our capitalism,” she said.  “It’s shown us that Bush and his economic policies, supported 94 percent of the time by Tom Latham, has taken us.”

It’s something that permeates any campaign conversation with Greenwald: the idea that Latham has voted with Bush 94 percent of the time. It’s become her central argument, calling Latham Iowa’s “Low yielding Congressman.” Greenwald’s campaign even started a Web site dedicated to hammering home the point. The site, ReplaceTomLatham.com, features a photo of Latham speaking with Bush and allows visitors to the site to provide their own caption of what was being said at the time the photo was taken.

“As bad as I felt the Bush-Latham economic policies were, and I always thought they were bad, I never dreamed it would hurt our economy so much,” she said. “I never thought it could get this bad.”

Greenwald will get her chance to discuss the issues face to face with Latham three times before the election: Oct. 3 on Iowa Public Television’s “Iowa Press,” and Oct. 10 on WHO radio in Des Moines and KGLO radio in Mason City.  She said she hoped to hold another debate, sponsored by KCCI-TV and The Des Moines Register, but Latham declined the invitation.

“I think when voters get the chance to see where their member of Congress stands on the issues the choice will become clear,” she said.

Latham’s campaign manager, Matt Hinch, said the 30-second ad, titled “Trusted Leadership,” is running district wide and is part of an “aggressive long-term buy.” Yesterday Democrat Becky Greenwald released an ad airing on television stations in Des Moines and Mason City.

The race has seen a recent flurry of activity, with Greenwald receiving the high-profile endorsement of EMILY’S List and an increased interest from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. However, previous filings with the Federal Election Commission indicate that Latham has a nearly 10 to 1 fundraising advantage.

In July, Latham released a statewide radio ad focusing on energy prices.

From their press release, sent minutes ago:

In this history-making campaign, Becky Greenwald will be the first woman to represent Iowa in the United States House of Representatives. Born and raised in Iowa, Greenwald has a strong understanding of the needs and concerns of everyday Iowans. Greenwald has been actively involved in the agricultural business in Iowa for over two decades. In Congress, she is committed to fighting for the issues that are most important to voters in the fourth district – forging a sustainable energy plan, ensuring access to health care, and fighting for higher wages and income security. In addition to her work at Iowa seed companies, she has held many leadership positions in the state Democratic Party and with agricultural organizations such as the American Forage and Grassland Council (AFGC) and Iowa Forage and Grassland Council (IFGC). Becky Greenwald is committed to working for the families of the fourth district by standing with them on today’s critical issues and by bringing a new brand of politics to Washington.

Just yesterday, desmoinesdem criticized the organization for not stepping in to support Greenwald.

In her own campaign press release, Greenwald welcomed the endorsement but emphasized that her goals extend beyond just making history for women by winning a congressional seat:

“We are thrilled that EMILY’s List has endorsed our race,” said Becky Greenwald. “EMILY’s List recognized the opportunity to make history this year.”

“But I’m not going to Washington to make history. I will go to Washington, roll up my sleeves, and work across the aisle to get things done for the people of the 4th District,” Greenwald continued. “For too long, Tom Latham has been a wingman for George Bush and blames Congress, the same place he has been for 14 years, for getting nothing done for Iowans. Enough is enough.”

In announcing his endorsement, Clark noted Greenwald’s experience caring for Vietnam War veterans and strong commitment to bringing the troops home from Iraq.

“I’m endorsing Becky for Congress because her experience with the American Red Cross assisting wounded veterans returning home from the Vietnam War has shaped her strong commitment to our nation’s veterans,” said General Wesley Clark.

Tom Latham has voted to cut billions from Veterans programs in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. (HCR 95, Vote #78, 3/20/03)

“George Bush and Tom Latham have for too long cut funding for our troops returning from Iraq, and we need Becky in Congress to be a voice for our soldiers,” said General Clark.

Becky’s first job out was of college with the American Red Cross helping military dependents and wounded Veterans returning from Vietnam adjust to a life with injury and the scars of war.  She worked at Wilford Medical Center, the largest Air Force Hospital in the country. This experience has shaped her views and left her with an unyielding commitment to keeping the promises we have made to our troops.

Becky supports a phased withdrawal from Iraq and is committed to bringing our troops home in a swift and safe fashion.  She supports a timeline for withdrawal that will maintain the safety and well-being of our troops.

“General Clark’s patriotism and service to our country is unmatched,” said Becky Greenwald. “I am honored to have his endorsement.”

Clark drew criticism in late June for a statement he made on CBS’s Face The Nation that U.S. Sen. John McCain’s military record does not automatically qualify him to be commander in chief.  The former Supreme Allied Commander, who oversaw NATO operations in Kosovo in the late 1990s, stood by his statement.

Latham has embraced campaign help from George Bush in the past when Bush held a fundraiser for his campaign in 2002. And in this last Congressional session, he voted with the Republican Party 92% of the time.

“With Bush’s approval ratings at a record low, no wonder Latham is attempting to reject the President. However, Latham’s actions speak louder than his words. Just saying you are separating from Bush can’t hide years of blind loyalty to the President,” said Greenwald Communications Director Erin Seidler.