Thursday, March 30, 2006

Braley 10, Dickinson 1

A week or so ago there was a flap in the Quad Cities Times when Rick Dickinson brought up a case his trial lawyer opponent took over a decade ago in which Braley represented a woman suing a labor union. Dickinson used this as a way to try to discredit Braley with the unions.

I said then (as did everyone else), and I say now, that this was a useless, poorly planned, and perhaps last-ditch effort by Dickinson. At the time though, a commenter asked me to do a post on just how wrong Dickinson was, pointing out that Braley got the Iowa Federation of Labor Endorsement, among others.

This commenter is right. A quick glance at the candidates' websites will show you that Bruce Braley has accumulated 10 labor endorsements compared to Dickinson's 1.

I'm not sure what gives Braley all this momentum among labor, but that coupled with Dickinson's inability to raise money last quarter (we'll soon see what this quarter brought in) has got to be killing the Dickinson campaign. My perspective on that primary, unlike the GOP primary, is that there is a clear favorite, and he is pulling away quickly.


In treasonous acts across our great nation this week, traitors have begun flying the Mexican flag above our own stars and stripes.

Old Glory has been desecrated in Texas, Florida, and Oregon, as well as many other places.

One may say that people have the right to do what they want in their own homes; so be it. However, this act of war has been taking places at schools (at the encouragement of the Principal), entrances to housing developments, and even government agencies.

Some say that these folks are simply exercising their rights to display their heritage. To the contrary, this anti-Americanism is as blatantly illegal as the immigrants for whom these people are advocating.

United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10: §175:

Position and manner of display:(c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof:

A flag is a symbol of a sovereign nation. A nation flies a flag to declare it's authority over all territory within it. This disloyalty should be treated as an invasion. How are we to pledge allegiance to our flag when it is submissively placed below that of another, or worse yet, completely banished from the pole on which it used to be flown with pride?

I realize this blog is about Iowa's First District, but immigration has been a hot topic in the GOP primary, and some have dismissed it as irrelevant to Iowa. If the Mexican flag is taking prominence in Oregon today, will it be in Iowa tomorrow?

Democrats, let me ask you this: Is illegal immigration still a "wedge issue" we shouldn't be talking about here in the 1st District? You say Republicans use it to rile their base, but the GOP can't even come together on this issue. I am an Iowan who wants answers, results, and patriotism, not partisanship.

UPDATE: Marshalltown, Iowa:

From the Des Moines Register 3/31/06:

The protesters carried signs and flagpoles with the Mexican flag flown above the United States flag. Walker said he didn't know what the signs said because they were in Spanish and he has no Spanish-speaking officers. He said Marshalltown citizens were upset by how the flags were flown.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Republicrat Whalen

Quad Cities Backstage blog finally picked up (nearly a week late) my post about Whalen hosting Al Gore for lunch at the Iowa Machine Shed.

Liberal Lion asserts that I did no research in questioning Whalen's Republican credentials, and sites FEC contribution reports as my downfall.

I comented on that blog that there is no question that Whalen has supported Republicans along the way too, but that the underlying problem with his back and forth is that his GOP primary voters aren't sure they can trust him to always put their Republican values above his personal gains.

Here is what I commented to The Lion:

Scoop Iowa said...

Mike Whalen may be a Republican, but the question before GOP voters in the primary is, "How true is Mike Whalen to his Republican principles?"

The point of the post at Iowa's First was to raise this question. While Liberal Lion is correct that Whalen's contributions to Republicans far outnumber his donations to Dems, if you do an FEC search for the other two candidates in the primary (Bill Dix and Brian Kennedy) you will not find a single contribution to a Democrat. Not one...and Kennedy has made a lot of political contributions.

So, you have to ask yourself what motivated Whalen to donate to the Dems. The only logical conclusion in this case, just like in the cases where he hosted Gore and Edwards during their campaigns, is that it made good business sense. He put profits over his supposedly Republican principles.

The problem for Mike is that voters in a primary for either party want someone they know they can count on to represent them and their core beliefs. Primary voters don't want to elect someone like Duke Cunningham who puts their personal interests ahead of thier principles.

The word is out among real conservatives, and while Mike Whalen may be a Republican, they know he is not truly one of them.
7:33 AM

No doubt there are people out there with more complete knowledge of the Iowa's First District than me. Am I way off base here, or is Whalen losing ground because the word is out on his questionable practices for personal profits?

Friday, March 24, 2006

Finally Some Rough and Tumble for the Dems

The Liberal Lion has a great post analyzing the consequences of this article from today's Quad Cities Times over on the Quad Cities Back Stage blog.

While LL offers critique into what this may mean for the Dem primary in IA-01, I just want to make my point that I am simply happy something is happening at all in that race. This blog has been completely dominated by Republican infighting until now, so to see some of their liberal counterparts going at it in the mainstream media is refreshing to me. Until today, all that's been covered by the accredited press on the Democratic side of the contest is the candidates' stances on snoozer issues like Medicare Part D.

Though I am glad some controversy is developing to give a little flavor to the race, I have to agree with Liberal Lion that Dickinson's technique here was a bit lacking. If the GOP bloggers on this site criticize the Brian Kennedy backers for being harsh on Whalen for donating to Democrats and hosting Al Gore at his restaurant, I think this attack by Dickinson could be seen in the same light. According to the article the case in question, in which trial lawyer Braley unsuccessfully represented a woman in a sexual harrassment suit against a labor union, took place 12 years ago in 1994. Dickinson posits that because he argued against the labor union in '94 on behalf of the woman, Braley is obviously not as pro-union as he would have the Democrats believe.

This seems like a bit of a reach to me. This case was twelve years ago and Braley was advocating for a woman which the article even graphically describes to have been harrassed. I don't think a logical connection can be made to say that because of this Braley was anti-union then, let alone now.

I hope the Dems keep going after each other to provide us with some liberal entertainment, but Rick, please pick your fights better. How long has your campaign been sitting on this information thinking that it is a goldmine, just waiting for the right moment to release it, when in reality it is nothing but a misguided stretching of illogical reasoning. As I see it, the only valid point to come out of this for the Dems to consider is discussed in the last paragraph of the Lion's post:

"In the event Dickinson wins, Dickinson will need the financial support of trial lawyers like Braley to take on whoever the Republican candidate is. Rather than taking on Braley's entire record, he is trying to narrow his attack to questioning Braley's commitment to unions. Republicans won't be as generous."

All Quiet on the Eastern Front

As you may have noticed, the last week has been pretty quiet, for both Iowa’s First and the real newsmakers. It seems that not much activity has been taking place on the ground here in Eastern Iowa. While bloggers for the various campaigns have remained almost as active as usual, I have noticed that they are mostly just recycling previous comments, adding nothing new of any substance.

So, the question must be asked, where are our candidates? Let’s venture to guess. I’ll start with the Republican candidates first, because they are the ones usually in the news. If you have any thoughts on the Democrats, please leave a comment.

Bill Dix: Representative Dix has undoubtedly been spending his time in Des Moines representing the constituents of his legislative district. While he hasn’t made the news with any bogus bills lately, I’m sure he’s trying to do “whatever it takes” to keep on top of his game. Reportedly, he’s been keeping his handlers busy asking them “Hey guys, what do you think we should do today?” Lucky for them, it’s not pumpkin season.

Brian Kennedy: Lawyer/lobbyist Brian Kennedy will probably claim he’s been off “fact-finding” in the tundra of Alaska, looking to prove that there is in fact oil in ANWR suitable for drilling. While this fact is already obvious to the rest of us, just like his Texas border stunt, his opponents will dismiss his adventure as a vacation. Ironically, everybody involved will all be lying, because Kennedy is probably in DC making a living.

Mike Whalen: Illinois restaurant mogul Mike Whalen surely has been in non-stop meetings with a crack team of corporate/campaign lawyers trying to come up with a plausible excuse for his FEC violations so that he can stay out of prison, let alone win an election. Rumor has it that their solution is to run more commercials to boost his ego, then take a poll to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the illegal ads are indeed effective.

Those are my presumptions. Where do you think they have been hiding?

Friday, March 17, 2006

Comments of No Value Go Here Please

First of all, let me say I post on what I read/see/hear in the news, on TV, on other blogs, or in comments. As I noted earlier, commenters have been feeding Scoop some stuff on Mike Whalen...see for yourself in posts below. If someone gives me a tip on Dix, I'd follow up. If someone gives me a tip on Kennedy, I'd follow up. If someone would give me a tip on any Democrat, I'd follow up. It is all part of being fair. I can't help it if I get more anti-Whalen tips than anything else. Apparently the guy has a past worth investigating. Get off my back.

Now, I have noticed on the blog a lot of comments that speak nothing to the issue at hand in my original post.

Examples would be the anonymous comments claiming that the person commenting before them has a preferance for a candidate, and therefor is a staffer of that candidate. I have seen people calling out both Kennedy and Dix supporters recently. This is pointless. There are actual Americans, unpaid by political campaigns that have opinions. Get over it.

Also in the "worthless" category are comments where the only thing achieved is petty name calling, i.e. "Brian Kennedy is an evil Washington lobbyist," or "Bill Dix is a dumb pumpkin farmer." Both widely known and undisputed facts. Stop being childish.

So, I say that from now on all rediculously stupid comments should be put in posts titled "Comments of No Value" which I will post occasionally.

Please keep comments in real posts issue-related.

Thank you,


PS - You may notice a deleted comment by me in the post was basically this, but I then decided it was important enough to garner it's own post.

Whalen Hosted Al Gore in 2000

A reader has broken this story: Mike Whalen played host to Al Gore during his 2000 Presidention campaign.

On January 24, 2000, the Cedar Rapids Gazette reports:

From charging down a gantlet of glitter-painted pompom girls, to turning his fire on the Republicans, Gore was in general election spirits even before the final verdict of Iowa's Democratic caucuses.

"I'm a fighter," he said when asked Monday at lunch what sets him apart. "For 23 years I have been unafraid to take on special interests." Questioned by reporters as he ate at the Iowa Machine Shed diner in Davenport, Gore said his experience also was important.

On January 25, 2000, a Boston Globe correspondent covering the race reported:

Gore, whose campaign was widely portrayed as being in disarray just a few months ago, held a consistent lead in the polls during the last several weeks. But he headed into caucus day insisting he was taking nothing for granted.

''I'm not counting my chickens before they're hatched,'' he said yesterday morning in Davenport, where he shook hands with diners and ate fried chicken at the Iowa Machine Shed, a restaurant known for its pork.

Mike Whalen:

Donated to Dave Nagle
Donated to Iowa Democratic Party
Hosted Al Gore

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

CQ Braley Leads the Pack

While the GOP candidates are fighting about immigration and gambling problems, Waterloo Democrat Bruce Braley is plowing ahead with a steady bid to win his Primary to make him the D's candidate in November.

Last night Congressional Quarterly's online outlet posted an article and interview with Braley. The issue front in the Dem primary is different from what we've seen in the papers for the GOP'ers. Braley has his focus on health care, and he and Rick Dickinson have been promoting countering plans to improve Medicare Part D.

The article notes that Braley leads all six candidates in the field in fundraising and cash on hand coming into 2006, and Braley does a great job of describing some of the differences between him and his opponents. He varies from Dickinson in his stance on lowering the cost of prescription drugs (Braley thinks we should import them from Canada while Dickinson writes off that notion). He is different from Bill Gluba in that Gluba is running as a pro-life Dem, while Braley says "I believe that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and that there are certain decisions that the government should not interfere with between a woman and her doctor."

CQ rates this as one of six US House districts with "no clear favorite".

Monday, March 13, 2006

How Much Does Mike Whalen Love Gambling?....A LOT

So much so that he went to the Iowa Supreme Court three times in to try to collect on revenues he thought he was entitled to that were generated by a riverboat casino - the first in Davenport - in which he was part owner.

An astute reader dug up this information on Whalen's economic opportunity. I wonder how long it will be before we see one of these for FEC v. Whalen:



No. 218 / 98-2070

Filed December 20, 2000





Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, James E. Kelley, Judge.

Appeal from order granting summary judgment on issue of conversion in favor of the defendants. Cross-appeal from order granting summary judgment on issue of malicious prosecution in favor of the plaintiff. REVERSED ON APPEAL AND REMANDED; AFFIRMED ON CROSS-APPEAL.

Mark McCormick of Belin Lamson McCormick Zumbach Flynn, P.L.C., Des Moines, and Martha L. Shaff and Jean Dickson Feeney of Betty, Neuman & McMahon, Davenport, for appellant.

R. Richard Bittner and Jeffrey S. Bittner of Carlin, Hellstrom & Bittner, Davenport, and Lawrence C. Friedman and Fernando Bermudez of Thompson Coburn L.L.P., St. Louis, Missouri, for appellees.

Considered en banc.

SNELL, Justice.

This is the third time these parties have been to the Iowa Supreme Court. This appeal involves enforcing the judgment from the first decision made by this court. Whalen v. Connelly, 545 N.W.2d 284 (Iowa 1996) (Whalen I). The judgment of the district court on the appeal is reversed. The judgment of the district court on the cross-appeal is affirmed.

I. Factual Background and Proceedings

Whalen I involved a dispute over how much Michael L. Whalen should be paid for his share of the riverboat gambling partnership with the defendants, collectively referred to as The Connelly Group, L.P. (TCG). Id. at 290–92. The district court held in a declaratory judgment that Whalen was entitled only to what TCG had originally offered to tender to him in 1993—$61,531.45 and 55,904 shares of stock. Id. at 292. Whalen appealed the judgment to our court arguing he was entitled to a more favorable buyout under the partnership agreement. We affirmed the declaratory judgment on March 20, 1996. Id. at 292, 296.

While the appeal was pending, Whalen sought the money and shares from TCG. In a letter of demand, Whalen informed TCG no appeal was pending. TCG knew this to be incorrect because it had already received notice of the appeal. TCG refused to surrender the money and stock because of the pendency of the appeal. Whalen’s appeal to this court in Whalen I was unsuccessful. By the time Whalen’s stock was delivered to him in May 1996, it had depreciated substantially. For this reason, Whalen filed the present and third appeal, which we will refer to as Whalen III, claiming a division of TCG illegally converted his property under the Iowa tender law, Iowa Code chapter 538, by keeping it until the appeal was resolved.

In the interest of providing a complete background we mention Whalen’s second appeal briefly. Whalen v. Connelly, 593 N.W.2d 147 (Iowa 1999) (Whalen II). This was a derivative claim. Whalen was again unsuccessful. Whalen II has no relation to the present facts or suit.

Whalen III revolves around Whalen’s assertion that John E. Connelly and J. Edward Connelly Associates, Incorporated (Connelly), a division of TCG, committed the tort of conversion by refusing to deliver the judicially determined buyout to Whalen pending his appeal in Whalen I. Connelly filed a counterclaim which charged Whalen with malicious prosecution for his suit in Whalen I. This appeal involves Whalen as the Appellant/Cross-Appellee and Connelly as the Appellee/Cross-Appellant.


Usually conservatives seem to oppose the spread of gambling, but not Mike Whalen...he started the spread of it here in Eastern Iowa. Then again, time and time again we see that Mike Whalen just isn't your usual conservative. How long are Republicans going to let this guy run under their banner?

Friday, March 10, 2006

Whalen Inflates Role at National Center for Policy Analysis, Caught in Catch-22

Today's QC Times tells yet another tale of Mike Whalen's apparent confusion.

This article, titled "Ethanol Plans Stir Debate", gives us an insight into Mike Whalen's real role at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

As Whalen tours the District, he has been known to mention his position as Policy Chair at the Center.

Though the point of the article is that Kennedy thinks Whalen has flip-flopped his stance on ethanol (read the article, or Kennedy's press release if you care about this), the more interesting element brought to light is seen in this excerpt from Tibbetts' writing:

Sean Tuffnell, the center’s communications director, said its president and scholars determine policy direction, not the policy chair or board of directors. “That would not be something he had direct input on,” Tuffnell said. He said the board’s role is more a financial one.

While I find it interesting that Tuffnell claims the policy chair has no say in the direction of policy, the conclusion that must be drawn from this statement is that Whalen was given this title for some other reason, probably because he made a sizable donation. That is the board's role..."a financial one".

Whalen seems to be caught in a catch-22 here. Either he is now forced to quit exploiting and inflating his role at the Center, or he has to admit a drastic flip-flop on ethanol, and be seen as pandering to farmers though there would always be a suspicion he is not sincere in his comments to them.

Unfortunately, we have no clue as to what will happen, because Whalen's handlers declined to let him comment on the situation. Instead, spokesman Brian Dumas issued a response. This appears to be the trend when Whalen gets in a bind.

“Mike’s spent three decades working to promote Iowa agriculture,” Dumas said, referring to Whalen’s founding of Heart of America Restaurants & Inns. “While Brian’s been living in Tennessee and Washington, Mike’s been in Iowa.”

While I'm not sure how long Kennedy spent out-of-state, I don't for a second think it is right for Dumas to claim that Mike has spent decades promoting Iowa agriculture. Nobody will ever convince me that Whalen's decision to start a restaurant and hotel chain was done as a courtesy to struggling farmers. Whalen founded the Machine Shed and Heart of America for his own personal financial gain, just as any business owner or entrepeneur does. Anyone who believes otherwise is being played for a fool.

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Whalen's My Favorite

Krusty is an idiot. He's not even considering all the great attributes of Mike Whalen for the GOP nomination in his recent post where he declares his love for Bill Dix.

Here's why I like Mike Whalen:

Mike has a business. He has grown that business from a "failed 100 seat coffee shop". What a guy. He has now been so good at business that he's had to move his multi-state conglomerate's headquarters to Moline to avoid paying taxes in Iowa. Most criticize this move, but I think it's smart business. Now, since he's had a wonderful career in the private sector, it's only logical that he deserves to be our next Congressman.

I like Mike Whalen because he's not your run of the mill Republican. Nope. Mike Whalen offers something that no other GOP candidate in this race does, and that is donations to Democrats. This simply shows that Mike has been on every team, and that he now knows he wants to be a Republican. If you mix the fact that he's now Republican with the fact the he donated to such a liberal guy as Dave Nagle, and that he helped defeat George H.W. Bush, I think Whalen averages out to be a pretty good moderate, which is probably what this seat needs to win in November. He may say he doesn't remember the donations, but I know he's just finally the candidate in the Republican primary that's genius enough to know he doesn't want all those conservative votes out there that most others think they need to win.

I like Mike because he's chubby and jolly. Always excitable, and darn it, he's downright entertaining. All the joking and fidgeting will without a doubt make him a great Congressman.

Also, his arrogance is certainly paying off. Everyone who meets him knows that he is a great guy...If you don't already, he'll tell you. And, he's not in it for the money or the pension. Since he's such a good restaurantuer that he is destined to be a great Congressman, he has millions already.

That's the other thing I like about Mike. I know that if he wants to he can pretty much buy the seat. And, knowing about his arrogance and his oversized ego, I think he just might try to win at whatever the cost. Therefore, if I back Mike I think I might be backing a winner. I like that too.

And there's proof. If you didn't know he's winning, just ask him. He'll tell you. He'll show you his poll he paid for. I am right, just like Mike. Whalen '06!

Monday, March 06, 2006

Candidate Collage...

...In the Quad Cities Times this weekend. This Article by Ed Tibbetts has news from all three Republican candidates.

Rightfully it should be Mike Whalen's article. The lead section is about his renewable fuel goals, which he calls "achievable", and most would call "silly". I'm glad he's out there talking about renewable fuels which benefit Iowa (this issue has not been mentioned lately, until now), but I wish he would give realistic goals, not just numbers that sound good while campaigning.

The entire second half of the article is given to the escalating brawl between Kennedy and Dix and the "who's tougher on immigration" contest. While I'm sure this bugs Whalen, since half of his story was stolen by these two jokers and their battle to see who's more exclusive, it brought up a few good points.

It seems that Dix's bill which he's so proud (you know, the one that will keep illegals from enjoying that proud moment when they first become homeowners, thus keeping them from coming here at all...because down in Mexico they know that in Iowa they might not get a loan), was substantially watered down in committee. Apparently, it no longer requires bankers to ascertain whether an applicant is here legally, thus defeating the whole purpose of the bill...or so says Kennedy.

Dix's campaign manager countered that it is simply "Washington double-talk" from Kennedy. This retort is nothing more than name-calling. However he does claim that the bill DOES require "banks to seek out an applicant's status and maintain those records".

So, apparently somebody here is lying. Kennedy says the bill doesn't demand proof of lawful entry into the country. The Dix camp says it does. Kennedy is a lawyer, well suited to read the law. Dix sponsored the bill. Both should be able to read the bill and clearly tell what it means. Therefore I don't think it is a mistake on someone's part here. Simply, someone is not telling the truth.

Saturday, March 04, 2006

Krusty Nearly Outed by Own Haiku Kontest

Krusty Konservative was nearly outed yesterday by a clever haiku artist.

The detective, who goes by "anonymous", caught Krusty in a klever web of 5 and 7 syllable phrases.

Using klue words like "dome" and "fire alarm" it was easy to decipher that the kapitol is where Krusty spends his days (as if anybody wasn't yet sure of that).

Though the true identity of Krusty Konservative has not yet been published (or Krusty was outed and deleted it before I spotted the posting), perhaps now his boss will understand his lackadaisical work ethic during the past week. Being in the House past 4:30 on a Friday is a rarity (probably trying to catch up on work time lost while blogging). I'm sure at that point it was not difficult to spot the mystery blogger.

While there are several humorous entries in the haiku dialogue that took place between Krusty and the detective, the contest dies off with an ominous threat to the Konservative blogger:

so close yet so far
no Kongress for this young staff
you are so busted

Will Krusty be forced to kome klean before his identity is divulged? Will we ever know who this lazy statehouse employee really is? Only time will tell.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Disappearance of the Democrats

So there has obviously been a lot going on with the GOP this week. Has anyone heard even a peep out of the 1st District Democrats? Braley, Dickinson, guys still out there?

Bloggers for Hire?

Apparently there is a conspiracy theory zooming through the blogosphere. A commenter to one of my recent posts today accused me of working for a campaign. "Anonymous" also called out another commenter, using nearly the exact same verbiage, on the Krusty Konservative blog.

See, Anon thinks politicians are now paying people to blog. I must say that if that is what campaigns of today have come to, simply paying people to fight with one another online all day, our political system is in much more trouble than anyone (yes even the Democrats) would have guessed.

Hey Anon the Accuser, who are YOU? My guess is that you are throwing stones in a glass house if the truth be told. Do us a favor, and quit assaulting bona fide bloggers with your insults...get a 'handle' so you can at least own up to your own comments.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Dix Takes Aim

An interesting development was brought to my attention by a commenter to the post below.

At issue is a radio ad which begins airing today for the Kennedy campaign. The ad can be found on his website.

Despite Kennedy's tough stance on immigration, and his trip to the border last week to see first-hand the situation and show how serious he is about this issue, Dix thinks he has nothing to back up his tough-guy attitude.

Dix says in a release, “I’m proud to have a real record, not a campaign of empty rhetoric,” Dix said. “Brian Kennedy has never taken a vote as an elected official or written a bill or passed a law. Just this week I voted for legislation that will curb illegal immigration. I am proud to be the author of a tough bill to curb illegal immigration that is moving through the Iowa legislature.”

His campaign manager also calls Kennedy a "...Washington lobbyist playing Washington games."

In response to the Dix attack, Kennedy returned fire with a release of his own.

Kennedy calls Dix's immigration proposal goofy, saying, "For Bill Dix to suggest he has a record of doing something about illegal immigration is laughable. For ten years he has sat in the Iowa House and failed to lead on this issue. Now, three months before a congressional primary, he is pushing a goofy idea his political consultants suggested about illegal immigrants and home mortgages."

We'll see how this shapes up. Today has been a big day for the GOP attacking itself. Will Dix join Kennedy on the attack against Whalen? Will Whalen join Dix on the attack against Kennedy? Right now it looks like every man for themself!

UPDATE on Whalen's Political Confusion...

...OR IS IT?

Today Ed Tibbetts reports for the Quad Cities Times on Republican candidate Mike Whalen's past donations to Democratic candidates and causes. The story first broke on Brian Kennedy's website where he posted in response to a question that Whalen donated to liberal Dave Nagle's 1992 campaign against Republican Jim Nussle. The following year, Whalen also made a contribution to the Democratic Party of Iowa. Both donations are documented and verifiable, with links from Kennedy's site for all to view.

In response to the news of his donations, Whalen says he doesn't remember doing it.

Apparently he is even more politically confused than I first thought.