The Iowa Independent seemed to want to write a positive analysis of Tom Vilsack's record in Iowa and its implications for his tenure as Secretary of Agriculture, but when you read past the irrelevant bits on tax policy and business incentives and political accomplishments, you're not left with much:
On matters of agriculture, Vilsack was a pragmatic centrist, content with incremental changes and reluctant to take steps to significantly disrupt the status quo. When he successfully ran for his first term as governor in 1998, the generally pro-Republican Farm Bureau decided not to oppose him, choosing instead to endorse both him and his opponent. That was an impressive feat for an underdog Democrat running for governor — especially for a trial lawyer who had never farmed a day in his life.[...]While he was governor, Vilsack remained largely above the fray of ongoing feuds over the placement of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) near rural communities. Groups on the left who would like to give local communities stricter control over where the CAFOs are allowed felt betrayed by their governor's unwillingness to help, but his stance kept agribusiness interests relatively quiet.
The Iowa farm industry is uniquely powerful, so you can argue that Vilsack had little choice. It was important to be governor than take on farm interests. But it means that all you've got is a vague hope that he'll act differently as Secretary of Agriculture. And, as they say, hope is not a plan. Vilsack could prove a great secretary, but for now, I'd have been more comfortable with a choice whose record aligned with progressive hopes for the office.
