Bleeding Heartland - A.J. Spiker

IA-Sen candidates mostly unknown, Quinnipiac poll shows

desmoinesdem — Fri, 24 May 2013 12:35:00 GMT

All of the candidates seeking to replace U.S. Senator Tom Harkin will need to work hard on raising their name ID in the coming year, judging from the new Quinnipiac University poll. Quinnipiac surveyed 1,411 registered Iowa voters between May 15 and 21, producing a margin of error of +/- 2.61 percentage points. Representative Bruce Braley, who is so far unchallenged in the Democratic primary, is the best known of the Senate contenders, but even so, 57 percent of respondents said they had not heard enough about him to form an opinion. Braley was in positive territory (27 percent favorable/14 percent unfavorable) among the respondents who expressed an opinion.

Quinnipiac asked Iowans about five potential Republican candidates for Senate. Although Secretary of State Matt Schultz holds a statewide office, 81 percent of respondents said they had not heard enough about him to form an opinion. About 11 percent had a favorable view of Schultz, 7 percent unfavorable.

The other possible GOP candidates were even less well known. Former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker's numbers: 8 percent favorable, 4 percent unfavorable, 86 percent haven't heard enough. State Senator Joni Ernst: 5 percent favorable, 3 percent unfavorable, 92 percent haven't heard enough. Iowa GOP chair A.J. Spiker: 2 percent favorable, 6 percent unfavorable, 91 percent haven't heard enough. Senator Chuck Grassley's staffer David Young: 3 percent favorable, 2 percent unfavorable, 94 percent haven't heard enough.

Several of those Republicans are much more widely known among GOP activists. Still, the Quinnipiac poll indicates that the eventual nominee will have plenty of work to do before the June 2014 primary. Then again, the competitive GOP race will generate a lot of media coverage next spring, while Braley could be fighting to keep his name in the news without a rival on the Democratic side.

Speaking of Republican competition, Sioux City-based college professor and talk radio host Sam Clovis may run for Senate. He told Bret Hayworth of the Sioux City Journal that he is "deeply steeped in the intellectual aspects of conservatism" and could appeal to the primary voters who are "ready for a red-meat conservative." The Iowa Republican's Craig Robinson reported that Young has resigned his position on Grassley's staff, is buying a house in Dallas County, and has retained consultants and a pollster for a Senate race. Meanwhile, Whitaker is already moving to the right on "Obamacare."

Latest IA-Sen news: taxes, spending, and problem solving

desmoinesdem — Wed, 22 May 2013 16:15:00 GMT

Time for another discussion thread on the race for Iowa's open U.S. Senate seat. Recent news on the campaign is after the jump.
So far two Republicans have confirmed plans to seek the Senate seat. Former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker's campaign website is up and running. He plans a formal announcement on June 3.

Earlier this month, Ames attorney Paul Lunde said he plans to run as well. Best known as the Republican challenger to Representative Neal Smith in 1992, Lunde is unlikely to become a factor in the GOP primary.

I haven't heard any news lately about Senator Chuck Grassley's staffer David Young, who has been talking with Iowa Republicans about the race.

Secretary of State Matt Schultz traveled to Washington last week to talk about a possible Senate bid. State Senator Joni Ernst and former State Representative Rod Roberts told the Omaha World-Herald's Andrew Nelson that "they would also likely travel to Washington as they decide whether to enter the race."

Ernst, who served as the Montgomery County auditor for six years before winning a special election to the Iowa Senate in January 2011, said she planned to decide soon but didn't know when and needed to consult with a wide range of people before she does.
"I look at the federal government and where we are in the United States today, and I see out-of-control spending and a huge deficit," Ernst said. "I would really like to focus my efforts in that area."

Memo to Ernst: in reality, the federal deficit is falling much faster than the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office previously estimated. The important task for Congress now is to "not blow it and keep the recovery on track"--that is, not to starve the economy with too much austerity.

One sign that Ernst is leaning toward running: she changed her mind about raising Iowa's gasoline tax. Mike Wiser reported on May 15,

State Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Red Oak, said her potential bid to replace Democratic U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin in the Senate weighed on her mind when she decided to pull her support from the controversial tax increase.
"I think so, when we look at Iowa as a whole," Ernst said. "I tend to focus on my district, but we do have to look at the big picture."
She said the fuel tax may have benefited her rural southern Iowa district, especially if the formula was figured differently, "but we get such a small percentage of any increase that (a fuel tax hike is) not worth it unless we see reductions in other areas." [...]
Ernst said she agreed to support the fuel tax increase if there was movement on property tax reform, but that's been holed up in conference committee. She said the state already is spending more money than it did last year and still not offering substantial tax relief.
"Right now, we're looking at an increase of over 3 percent from general fund dollars, but when you look at one-time money being spent, you're looking at over a 6 percent increase in spending, and I can't do that in good conscience," she said. "I think fuel tax is off the table right now."

Republicans could do a lot worse than Ernst as a nominee, and I'm not the only Democrat who thinks so. On Monday, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee called attention to her past support for a gas tax hike.

"Joni Ernst had no problem raising taxes on all Iowans before she was considering running for Senate, and Iowans deserve better than someone whose personal political ambition is the most important aspect of her decision-making process," committee spokesman Justin Barasky said. "The truth is, Joni Ernst has been championing a tax increase on Iowa's middle-class families and probably saw polling showing that's a really bad idea. What else will Joni Ernst suddenly have a change of heart on now that she has national aspirations?"
For years, lawmakers have debated raising the state's fuel tax, which has not increased since 1989 and is set at 22 cents. A commission appointed by Gov. Terry Branstad recommended last year an increase of 8 to 10 cents, plus boosts in certain fees to pay for a backlog of road repairs. [...]
On Monday, Ernst said she changed her mind on the tax because the state is doing much better financially than it once was.
"After years of mismanagement by Democratic governors, we now have a healthy surplus in the state," she said. "I think there are other ways to pay for road repairs than raising taxes."

She's wrong about "mismanagement"; Iowa finished the 2010 and 2011 fiscal years in surplus, based on budgets passed by a Democratic legislature and signed by Governor Chet Culver. But Iowa Republicans will continue to push their false narrative through the next election cycle.

It's no surprise that Ernst supported the gas tax increase; quite a few Republicans representing rural districts saw that policy as a way to improve crumbling farm to market roads. But the major interest groups that have lobbied for the policy, such as road builders and the Iowa Farm Bureau, have less influence in a statewide race than they do at the Iowa capitol.

Representative Bruce Braley still appears likely to be unchallenged for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate. Last week his campaign launched the "Iowa Problem Solver" website to showcase how "Bruce Braley fights for common sense solutions and gets things done for Iowa" as a member of Congress since 2007. So far, featured posts have highlighted how Braley:

worked to keep Iowa air traffic control towers open;

wrote legislation that "gave employers a payroll tax cut if they hired someone who was unemployed for more than 60 days";

helped pass language providing tax credits "to businesses that hire previously unemployed veterans and veterans returning from service abroad";

fought to keep student loan interest rates low;

created a "worker training program for renewable energy jobs";

secured federal funds to rebuild two railroad bridges destroyed by the 2008 floods;

helped make the adoption tax credit permanent;

fought to pass the "bipartisan farm bill" last year;

helped changed Medicare reimbursement rates for Iowa health care providers (as part of the 2010 health care reform law);

pushed for federal funds to help "enforce traffic laws that punish reckless drivers for illegally passing stopped school buses;

worked to change regulations that would have hurt a Marshalltown manufacturer;

fought to keep rural post offices open;

and "worked to give farmers a voice at the EPA." (Bleeding Heartland took a less favorable view of that "problem solving.")

Final note: For whatever reason, Buzzfeed's Benny Johnson and Kate Nocera ranked Braley number 13 on their list of "biggest Bros" of Congress.

Any comments about the Senate race are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: With the Boy Scouts about to vote on whether to allow LGBT scouts and leaders to participate, Braley continues to urge supporters to sign his campaign's petition to lift the Boy Scouts' ban on gay youth and parents. These progressive issue-based petitions are a good list-building tactic for the Braley campaign in the absence of primary competition or a Republican candidate to define yet.

At least one Bleeding Heartland reader was polled this week by Quinnipac, asking about Ernst, Whitaker and Republican Party of Iowa chair A.J. Spiker as potential Senate candidates. Anyone else receive the same polling phone call?

GOP "autopsy" discussion thread (updated)

desmoinesdem — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:40:00 GMT

The Republican National Committee released a so-called "autopsy" on the 2012 election results today. You can read the full report on the "Growth and Opportunity Project" here. I've posted a few excerpts, links and thoughts after the jump.

Any comments about the GOP's rebuilding and rebranding effort are welcome in this thread.
The first part of the report lays out the Republican Party's demographic and messaging problems. It then presents various successful Republican governors as showing "the way forward." The document then lays out a path to improve its standing among growing demographic groups:

The Republican Party must focus its efforts to earn new supporters and voters in the following demographic communities: Hispanic, Asian and Pacifc Islanders, African Americans, Indian Americans, Native Americans, women, and youth. This priority needs to be a continual effort that affects every facet of our Party's activities, including our messaging, strategy, outreach, and budget.

The RNC plans to spend $10 million on outreach to those groups. RNC Chair Reince Priebus promised today that the party will start working on this project in 2013 and will not let up before the next presidential election. The document also calls for advocating "positive solutions on immigration," as a gateway for appealing to Latinos on other issues.

The "elephant in the room" here is that comprehensive immigration reform is anathema to most elected Republican officials and candidates, even though it is important to unaffiliated Latino voters. I would be shocked if the U.S. House approved any bill that included a path to citizenship or even legal residency for undocumented immigrants.

But that's only part of the problem. Multiple surveys have shown that Latino voters support tax increases on the wealthy as part of any deficit reduction package. That's not just true for Latino Democrats, but also for the vast majority of Latino independents across the country. Even Latinos who describe themselves as born-again Christians rather than Catholics "support raising taxes on the wealthy as part of a deficit plan."

Meanwhile, Republican politicians are stuck on cutting non-defense domestic spending and entitlements, rejecting any further tax increases.

GOP orthodoxy on various issues is off-putting to African-Americans, women, and young people. Better outreach won't solve that problem. The U.S. Supreme Court may open an escape hatch for the party on gay marriage, but that won't change Republican candidates' position on affirmative action, equal pay for women, or access to contraception.

The "autopsy" emphasizes the need to improve the GOP's "campaign mechanics (databases, voter contacts, new voter registration, polling, etc.). Focusing more on early GOTV and getting field staff on the ground sooner is bound to help Republican candidates. But there's little sign that those candidates are ready to adapt their policy stands, or that GOP primary voters are ready to embrace more moderate candidates.

Despite the problems identified in the autopsy, the 2014 midterm elections could be good for the GOP. The party is very likely to retain control of the U.S. House, in part thanks to gerrymandering. Republicans could make big gains in the U.S. Senate, depending on the outcome of several GOP nominating contests. Republicans may also continue to control a majority of governorships.

If that happens, conservatives may take the complacent view that the last two presidential elections were an aberration because of Barack Obama's appeal and amazing campaign infrastructure.

The RNC document proposes several changes before 2016, including fewer primary debates for presidential candidates. But Bill Scher pointed out today,

As the report mentioned, the Republican presidential candidates participated in 21 debates during the 2008 campaign, and 20 in the 2012 campaign.
But the report does not mention that the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries featured 26 debates.
So it's not the number of the debates. It's what gets said at the debates.

The next presidential campaign is likely to feature lots of right-wing heroes: Senators Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, former Senator Rick Santorum, Governor Bobby Jindal, and possibly also Governor Scott Walker and Representative Paul Ryan. Even if that group only debates a handful of times, you can count on plenty of "out there" sound bites emerging.

Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman reported today that some conservatives are outraged by what they see as a "power grab" by the establishment.

Tucked in near the end of the 97-page report, formally known as The Growth and Opportunity Project, are less than four pages that amount to a political bombshell: the five-member panel urges halving the number of presidential primary debates in 2016 from 2012, creating a regional primary cluster after the traditional early states and holding primaries rather than caucuses or conventions.
Each of those steps would benefit a deep-pocketed candidate in the mold of Mitt Romney. [...]
The recommendations are also a nod to the party's donor class. Several donors bluntly told RNC Chair Reince Priebus at meetings right after the election that they wanted Iowa, with its more conservative base, to have less of a role in the process.
Reaction was swift. Allies of potential 2016 hopefuls Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and former Sen. Rick Santorum, sensing a power play by the establishment-dominated panel, reacted angrily to recommendations they think are aimed at hurting candidates who do well in caucuses and conventions and need debates to get attention.
"Caucuses give you a better glimpse of what the base of the party wants," said Iowa GOP Chair A.J. Spiker, who hails from the Paul wing of the party. "And those people, they aren't going to be swayed as easily by television ads as a primary voter. They're a more politically educated voter."
Spiker added that an "attempt to get rid of that is really an attempt to get rid of what the base of the party wants. I think RNC membership would object to that too."

UPDATE: The Iowa GOP doesn't think much of the autopsy. Note the air quotes:

I haven't seen any reaction to this report yet from Representative Steve King (IA-04), but in his speech to the CPAC conference over the weekend, King took a swipe at "rebranding" efforts.

"There are some people within our movement that want to rebrand the Republican Party," King said Saturday. "Now, they may succeed in doing that, but they're never going to rebrand us conservatives."
King made his comments this weekend at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. King vowed to leave the event "like a rocket" to challenge the Republican Party to do more to promote traditional marriage and to "protect innocent, unborn life."
"I look at the agenda that's been coming out of congress recently and it seems to me to be a hollow agenda," King said. "There's a lot more to this country than buy, sell, trade, make, gain. Yes, economics are important and, yes, free enterprise capitalism is a pillar of American exceptionalism, but it isn't the central point. It isn't the sole point." [...]
"The thing that a bunch of people that have been backing away from these challenges don't seem to realize is I'm still standing," King said. "Now, why is that? I didn't run a campaign on 'jobs and the economy, jobs and the economy, jobs and the economy' and beat that drum until I beat people into sleep. That's part of it all right, but all of the rest of this has to be added together or we can never reconstruct this country."

SECOND UPDATE: Craig Robinson commented at The Iowa Republican,

The RNC report offers more than 200 solutions to the problems that the GOP experienced in 2012, but in reality, Priebus is only offering Republicans one solution - a larger, more expensive, more controlling RNC in future campaigns. The 100-page RNC missive seeks to regulate outside groups, have complete say over every detail of presidential debates, and it advocates for the presidential primary calendar to be condensed and its contest regionalized. [...]
Reining in the number of debates and regulating the timing of them is an honorable goal, but how the RNC plans to force news agencies and candidates to comply with their wishes is anyone's guess.
To understand this, one only needs to look at what happened in Iowa in 2007. ABC News held a presidential debate in August against the wishes of the Republican Party of Iowa. The candidates choose to participate and the debate was held at Drake University. Later that year, a Republican Party of Iowa Debate with Fox News was canceled because the candidates didn't want to participate, opting to instead participate in a new debate with the Des Moines Register.
The point is simple. It is the presidential candidates, not state party committees, the RNC, or even the news organization hosting the debate who determine what debates will actually happen. Campaigns will always do what's best for their campaign, regardless of whether or not the debate is sanctioned by the RNC.

Josh Barro of Bloomberg News commented, "The patient is dead but the cororner doesn't understand why." Excerpt from Barro's piece on the GOP's "empathy gap":

The Republican National Committee's recent report on fixing the party runs 100 pages, but if you want to know why the report fails, all you need to see is this statement on Page 5: "We are the Party of private-sector economic growth because that is the best way to create jobs and opportunity. That is the best way to help people earn an income, achieve success and take care of their families."
There are two flawed and unaddressed assumptions in that statement. One is that Republican policies create more private sector economic growth than Democratic policies, an outcome we haven't observed in recent decades. The other is that economic growth will flow through effectively to rising standards of living, even though since the 1970s gross domestic product growth has strongly outpaced wage growth. [...]
Conservatives have been badly disserved by their side's health-policy experts, who have misled them into believing that they have a health plan that would lead to universal coverage and cost reductions. (The public has correctly observed the Republicans as simply being obstinately opposed to health reform.) Many were misled by the Mitt Romney campaign into believing that it is possible to sharply cut tax rates on the rich without losing revenue or raising taxes on the middle class.
But partly it's a failure of empathy. I really do mean empathy, not sympathy. Conservative elites are aware that poor people exist and genuinely want them to become wealthier. They are just completely failing to put themselves in the shoes of the poor or even the middle class and understand what they would actually find helpful, in the way they can understand that unauthorized immigrants would like to become citizens and gay people would like to get married. They fixate on distortions and costs created by Obamacare and don't even pause to think about why someone would value a guarantee of affordable health coverage.

IA-Sen: Grassley won't get involved in GOP primary

desmoinesdem — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 23:20:00 GMT

Senator Chuck Grassley doesn't plan to endorse a candidate in the Republican primary for Iowa's open U.S. Senate seat next year, he told John Stanton of BuzzFeed.com this week. He has a favored candidate in mind, but plans to keep that view to himself:

Despite his role as the elder statesman of the party, Grassley said he's not getting seriously involved in the primary: though he has spoken to one candidate. "I said to him, 'You're the only one I'm going to encourage to run, I'm not going to tell anyone they shouldn't run.' Because everyone I've heard talked about is a viable candidate ... that's as far as I'm going to go.

Grassley was wise not to discount Representative Steve King's prospects; respect from elder statesmen like him and Governor Terry Branstad will make it easier for King to bow out of the Senate race without looking chicken.

I would guess that Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey is the person Grassley has encouraged to run for Senate. Northey is thinking about the race, but I suspect that his past support for a gasoline tax would become a problem in a GOP primary.

Any comments about the Senate race are welcome in this thread. UPDATE: Bret Hayworth of the Sioux City Journal has been covering King for some time. He believes that King is more likely than not to run for Senate.

SECOND UPDATE: Iowa GOP Chair A.J. Spiker confirmed that he is thinking about running for Senate. Good luck with that. The Ron Paul machine is well-organized but probably not large enough to deliver victory in a statewide primary.

Weekend open thread: Iowa demographics edition

desmoinesdem — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 02:55:54 GMT

What's on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? A few links related to Iowa demographics are after the jump, along with highlights from this week's "Iowa Press" program, featuring Republican Party of Iowa Chair A.J. Spiker and Iowa Democratic Party Chair Tyler Olson.

This is an open thread.
You can look up basic demographic information by Congressional district as well as by state, county, or metro area on the U.S. Census Bureau's "Easy Stats" page. The tables contain information drawn from the 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Be warned: playing around on this website can suck up more time than you'd planned. I've been looking at various statistics from Iowa's four Congressional districts.

Iowa's new political map was based on figures from the 2010 census. According to those numbers, the four new Congressional districts were extremely close in population size, ranging from a low of 761,548 people in IA-01 to a high of 761,624 people in IA-02.

Based on estimates from the Census Bureau's 2011 survey, IA-03 is now the most populous district in the state with 770,819 residents, followed by IA-02 (766,120 residents), IA-01 (763,903 residents), and IA-04 (761,467 residents).

IA-03 also has the largest youth population of the four districts and the smallest number of senior citizens. Not surprisingly, IA-04 contains the most seniors (an estimated 128,119 people age 65 or older), followed by IA-01 (118,709 seniors), IA-02 (112,818 seniors), and IA-03 (98,544 seniors).

The community survey indicates that IA-03 has the largest Black or African American population (an estimated 28,278 people as of 2011), followed by IA-02 (26,257 people), IA-01 (24,510 people), and IA-04 (9,213 people).

The Iowa Congressional district with the largest Hispanic or Latino population of any race is IA-03 (48,201 people), followed by IA-04 (44,288 people), IA-02 (36,455 people), and IA-01 (24,297 people).

IA-03 has the largest Asian-American population as well (20,012 people), followed by IA-02 (15,476 people), IA-04 (12,130 people), and IA-01 (8,422 people).

Because it contains Tama County, the first district has the largest estimated American Indian and Alaska Native population (4,490 people), followed by IA-04 (3,038 people), IA-03 (2,312 people), and IA-02 (2,169 people).

Median household income is highest in IA-03 ($54,641), followed by IA-01 ($50,125), IA-02 ($47,391), and IA-04 ($45,454). One reason for the disparity is that the third district has the highest levels of educational attainment among residents over age 25. The percentage of high school graduates is comparable across the Congressional districts, but in IA-03 some 31.1 percent of residents over 25 have a bachelor's degree or higher. That figure is 26.1 percent IA-02, 24.9 percent in IA-01, and 21.0 percent in IA-04.

IA-01 contains the largest estimated population of civilian veterans (60,307), followed by IA-04 (57,179), IA-03 (54,944), and IA-02 (54,307).

There's much more information about Iowa as a whole, counties, metro areas, and Congressional districts on the "Easy Stats" page.

The gap between the wealthiest 20 percent of Iowans and the poorest 20 percent has been growing over the past decade, though income inequality is higher in many other states than in Iowa.

Speaking of demographics, on February 9 Mitch Henry posted this list of Latino elected officials in Iowa on his Facebook page. It's embarrassingly short.

Jose Zacarias - West Liberty City Council
Sara Huddleston - Storm Lake City Council
Pete Rodriguez - Denison City Council
Dawn Hernandez - Postville City Council
Bernabe Rodriguez - Columbus Junction City Council
Rita Vargas - Scott County County Recorder
Patt Zamora - Davenport School Board
Brenda Garcia-Van Auken - Muscatine School Board
Paula Recinos - Mason City School Board
Paul Castro - Bettendorf School Board

Moving to other political news, I watched Iowa Democratic Party Chair Tyler Olson and his counterpart in the Iowa GOP A.J. Spiker on this weekend's "Iowa Press" program. The video and full transcript are available on Iowa Public TV's website. They spent most of the time discussing the upcoming U.S. Senate race. Neither Olson nor Spiker were willing to endorse a candidate in the primary, and both talked up their party's prospects in the 2014 elections generally. Olson dodged questions about whether he plans to run for governor.

Henderson: Mr. Olson, question for you. Are you going to run for governor?
Olson: Well, we need a new governor. I mean, just look at the last couple of weeks. Governor Branstad has pushed forward proposals to cut education spending --
Borg: But the question is, does that put you in the race?
Olson: Well, that's a decision that will be made over the course of some weeks and months. But we need a new governor. He has pushed cuts to education funding, he is opposing access to health insurance for 155,000 Iowans, cutting funding for clean water and that is just in the last couple of weeks. His record over the last two years reflects the same thing, vetoing middle class tax cuts for Iowans, trying to end our preschool program which meant 25,000 Iowa four year olds would have been out on the street.
Henderson: That may have been your first speech on the campaign trail. Can you be both? Can you be party chair and governor? Or is this party chair thing just a precursor helping you ramp up?
Olson: Well, I'm focused on making sure that Iowa democrats are in a spot so that when we get to a year from now our nominees, no matter who they are, have the resources they need, have the organizational structure that they need to be successful in 2014. We are in a strong spot but we're not going to stand still. We're going to keep moving forward and making sure that our organization is strong.
Henderson: It can't hurt to have the ability to travel to all 99 counties and introduce yourself to people.
Olson: Again, my focus is going to be on building that organization no matter who our nominees are going to be. We're in a strong spot, we're going to keep moving forward.
Borg: Let me ask it this way. Up until Tom Harkin's announcement that he wasn't going to run again we thought it was Bruce Braley who was a prime candidate, democrats did too I think, to go against Governor Branstad, who you raised your hand a moment ago and said I think he's going to run again. But doesn't this now attention -- isn't this a game changer, the announcement, and doesn't it shift all the energy, if not maybe all, a good share of the energy and momentum now toward that Senate race and away from the governor's race, money and attention?
Olson: Well, I think there's going to be a lot more attention on Iowa because Senator Harkin's decision not to run for re-election --
Borg: Is that going to make it harder for the democrats to run someone strong against Governor Branstad?
Olson: I think it's going to benefit democrats running at all levels of office. Senator Harkin talked in his speech announcing that he was not going to run for re-election about the need for a fresh perspective, for voices that understand the world today and maybe not what it was 30 years ago and that is the case that I think democrats are going to make against Governor Branstad as well.

Spiker avoided answering a question about his relationship with Branstad. Last fall, he strongly objected to Branstad's criticism of the Ames straw poll, a major fundraiser for the Iowa GOP.

The Cedar Rapids Gazette picked up on these comments near the end of "Iowa Press."

Henderson: Mr. Spiker, there is a group of republicans who are meeting with the goal of eventually getting the GOP to accept same-sex marriage or at least not make it a central point of any campaign. What are your thoughts on that effort?
Spiker: Well, the party wants to be welcoming and we're a big tent and we want to have people of a lot of different views that are part of the party. But what they also need to understand is that there is a gay marriage party in the state of Iowa and that is the Iowa Democratic Party. The Republican Party embraces one man, one woman marriage and embraces the right of the people to vote on the definition of marriage.

Feel the inclusion! Spiker is only in his early 30s, by the way. In a few decades, he'll be embarrassed not to have joined the cause of Iowa Republicans for marriage equality.

The Iowa Democratic Party sent out a press release on February 8 highlighting the contrast between Spiker and Olson on this issue.

AJ Spiker: "We are the Party of One Man and One Woman"
RPI chair uses 'Iowa Press' segment to reinforce his opposition to marriage equality
Des Moines - Today, during an appearance on Iowa Public Television, new Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rep. Tyler Olson discussed how Democrats are united and focused on the future, while Republican Party Chair, AJ Spiker, demonstrated once again that his party is still fighting the battles of the past.
"There is a gay marriage party in the state of Iowa and that's The Iowa Democratic Party," Spiker said. "The Republican Party embraces one-man/one-woman marriage and embraces the right of the people to vote on the definition of marriage."
The response followed a question from Radio Iowa's O. Kay Henderson regarding recent meetings between Iowa Republicans who are concerned that the GOP will continue to lose with younger voters who embrace marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rep. Tyler Olson joined Spiker as a guest on this week's Iowa Press, where they also discussed Iowa's political climate, including the race for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Tom Harkin in 2014.
Olson struck a very different tone than Spiker, stressing that Iowans have "moved on" from the fight over same-sex marriage.
"Iowa Democrats are focused on job creation, economic development, and expanding access to health care," Olson said. "These are the issues that are important in Iowans' daily lives."
"It's disturbing that Chairman Spiker and the RPI are committed to fighting about issues that have long since been settled."
This segment of Iowa Press will be broadcast Friday, February 8 at 7:30 p.m. and Sunday, February 10 at noon. The program will also be broadcast on IPTV WORLD (.3) Saturday, February 9 at 8:30 a.m. Iowa Press will be available online beginning Friday evening at www.iptv.org .

IA-Sen: Braley's in, plus more on Rove's power play (updated)

desmoinesdem — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:40:00 GMT

Representative Bruce Braley e-mailed supporters this morning to confirm that he is "setting up a committee to run for the U.S. Senate." Excerpts from the e-mail are after the jump.

I've also enclosed below the latest news on Karl Rove's effort to prevent unelectable Republican candidates from winning U.S. Senate primaries. Iowa talk radio host Steve Deace wants conservatives to try to "beat Karl Rove at his own game."
From the Braley for Iowa e-mail of February 7:

Friend --
I want you to be the first to know.
It's a big responsibility to represent the people of Iowa in the United States Senate, especially after Tom Harkin has shown us how for the last 30 years. But, if you are willing to help me, I'm ready to go.
That's why today, I'm setting up a committee to run for the U.S. Senate.
Click here to let your family and friends know about the important first steps of this campaign.
Just as Sen Harkin did when he first ran, I'll need to meet a lot of Iowans outside of my district. I'll pledge to them, just like the people of Eastern Iowa that I will listen, work hard, and get things done for Iowa's middle class.
It's time to start a conversation with Iowans - about rebuilding the middle class, creating economic opportunity for everyone, and keeping America strong. I'm looking forward to the conversation and I'm looking forward to meeting with you. We will kick off the conversations with a Facebook chat in the next few weeks.
And, like today, you'll be the first to know when those will happen.

The link goes to a Facebook page with a Braley for Iowa logo in UNI purple and white.

I don't expect more than token opposition to Braley in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Bob Krause, the first Democrat to announce a challenge to Senator Chuck Grassley in 2009, is considering another campaign. Krause finished a distant second to Roxanne Conlin in the 2010 Democratic primary.

On the Republican side, the establishment will be working overtime to prevent Representative Steve King from becoming the GOP nominee against Braley. King told Fort Dodge radio host Michael Devine on Tuesday that there's a "better than 50 percent" chance he'll run for the Senate. Most of the big Iowa Republican donors would much rather see Representative Tom Latham run.

This morning Politico has more on Karl Rove's new effort to block unelectable Republican candidates in primaries.

The Conservative Victory Project, the new spin-off from Rove's Crossroads groups, will consist of a super PAC that discloses its donations, and POLITICO has learned it will also include a tax-exempt group that allows it to shield donors.
In essence, this is the GOP establishment's attempt to make candidates for Republican nominations prove themselves before blowing winnable elections like Todd Akin and Christine O'Donnell, and Rove's allies hope the combination of cash and scrutiny does the trick.
"This is a bad idea whose time has come," former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a powerhouse fundraiser for Crossroads, said of the new organization, according to an email Monday to donors from Steven Law, head of the Crossroads groups and Conservative Victory Project.

Speaking to the New York Times a few days ago, Law mentioned Iowa as a state where Rove's project will get involved:

"We're concerned about Steve King's Todd Akin problem," Mr. Law said. "This is an example of candidate discipline and how it would play in a general election. All of the things he's said are going to be hung around his neck."

In a guest opinion piece for Politico this week, Steve Deace argued that conservatives can beat Karl Rove "at his own game."

Conservatives in Virginia took over the state convention last year and changed the way the party would nominate its gubernatorial candidate. Instead of a primary that provides a target-rich environment for Rove and his political hacks to buy a nomination, Virginia Republicans decided to determine their nominee at convention - where the people who care the most about the future of the party and the country reign supreme. That decision drove the establishment candidate out of the race altogether, and allowed emerging conservative superstar Ken Cuccinelli a clear path to the nomination.
Virginia has the right idea. For example, why should Rove and his GOP elites be allowed to pick the U.S. Senate nominee for my home state of Iowa? Congressman Steve King has served nearly every conservative cause that matters with distinction. If the conservative grassroots wants King as their nominee in next year's election, following Virginia's lead would almost assure that would happen. After all, who should determine who represents our values? Those in the grassroots that actually fight for them, even when it's not popular, or Rove and his cynical Beltway bunch that really don't have too many core worldview differences from Democrats?
Besides, I love hoisting foes with [sic] their own petard. We originally went to a primary system to avoid the smoke-filled rooms of conventions, so it would be deliciously ironic to revert back to conventions to take Boss Tweed-wannabes like Rove and the big money out of the process and restore virtue and principal [sic].

Iowa Democrats would love the opportunity to take out King in a statewide race. He probably can't be beaten in the fourth Congressional district this decade.

UPDATE: James Hohmann reports for Politico that Steve King sent an e-mail to supporters today:

"I have not made a decision on this matter, but already Karl Rove and his army have launched a crusade against me," King writes. [...]
"They said I couldn't win in 2012 - the entire political machine was against me - but I soundly defeated my opponent by 8 percentage points," he writes. "So let me be clear. Nobody can bully me out of running for the U.S. Senate, not even Karl Rove and his hefty war chest."
King concludes by asking for a donation of $25, $50, $100 or more to "help me ward off Karl Rove's baseless attacks."

King keeps bragging that he defeated Christie Vilsack, but he doesn't tell you that he received fewer votes in IA-04 than Mitt Romney did. What does that tell you about his chances for winning a statewide election?

SECOND UPDATE: Todd Dorman analyzes the possible significance of Braley's purple campaign logo.

THIRD UPDATE: King spoke to Radio Iowa on February 7.

"This is a decision for Iowans, not someone who happens to have a checkbook," King told Radio Iowa. [...]
King isn't yet ready to officially declare himself a candidate for the Senate, however.
"It's gotten closer each day, but I wouldn't want to imply that the decision is made. It's not," King said. "It will be made by a thorough analysis of county-by-county, and all of the resources necessary to run a race of this magnitude."
King spoke with Radio Iowa by phone late this afternoon. He was at Camden Yard in Baltimore, attending a Heritage Foundation retreat. Steve Forbes, the two-time presidential candidate, was the keynote speaker.

King can raise enough money for a statewide race, but the votes aren't there for him across eastern Iowa or in otherwise Republican suburban areas.

FEBRUARY 9 UPDATE: Iowa Democratic Party Chair Tyler Olson and Republican Party of Iowa Chair A.J. Spiker were this weekend's guests on Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press" program. Excerpts from the discussion:

Henderson: Mr. Olson, Congressman Bruce Braley announced this past week that he is running for the United States Senate in 2014. Is he the only candidate your party will put forward? Or is he going to face a primary?
Olson: Well, Iowa democrats will ultimately choose who our Senate nominee will be. Congressman Braley has been a really effective voice for Iowans in Congress, for middle class Iowans and the values that I think we all share. He has been a champion for us there and will be a strong candidate.
Henderson: Does that -- is that an endorsement from you?
Olson: No. I'm not endorsing Congressman Braley's run. I think he was a great congressman and ultimately Iowa democrats will choose who that nominee will be.
Henderson: Mr. Spiker, Governor Branstad says he doesn't want to live in D.C., he'd love to run but he doesn't intend to do so. Who is the best GOP candidate to run for the United States Senate?
Spiker: Yeah, the best GOP candidate to run is whoever our party selects as its nominee. We trust the grassroots to decide who the nominee of the party is and the party will fully support whoever is chosen. [...]
Obradovich: You say that Iowa republicans will decide. But Karl Rove this week suggested that he would like to help Iowa republicans decide. He is coming out with his organization against Steve King. Steve King, of course, is one of the more conservative voices in the party. Karl Rove says a candidate like that can't win the general election. What is your response to that?
Spiker: Well, Steve King obviously can win general elections, he has won them. He just beat Christie Vilsack in a very competitive race in the fourth district of Iowa. As far as Karl Rove intervening in our party's business in Iowa it is ultimately up to Iowans and Iowans are used to politics that is really grassroots, door-to-door activity where they get to know the candidates and they decide who they believe best represents their values. So I don't believe Karl Rove will have the kind of influence in a state like Iowa that he might want to have.
Obradovich: Does he even make -- does Karl Rove, his interference even make conservatives more determined to nominate one of their own?
Spiker: Well, I believe there's blow back when you have out-of-state interest groups or large PACs that come in and try to influence an election. And obviously to a lot of people Karl Rove represents part of what went wrong with Akin. Karl Rove was one of the people who turned on Todd Akin in Missouri right away and helped end the Akin campaign. I believe that his getting involved in this election in Iowa, it won't go in the direction he would like it to go.
Obradovich: And Mr. Olson, one name that hasn't been mentioned, actually two names, is Vilsack. They have been named as being potential candidates for U.S. Senate. Tom Vilsack, of course, Secretary of Agriculture and Christie Vilsack, who ran for Congress. What is your feeling about whether either of them might get into the race?
Olson: Well, I have not heard from either one of them one way or another. Iowans are going to decide who our nominee is going to be. I have great confidence that we're going to win that Senate seat. We already have one great candidate in the race, others may join. But ultimately we're going to be successful in keeping that seat in 2014.
Obradovich: What makes you confident about keeping the seat? We saw in 2010 an off year for the president, it was a republican year. It very well could be a republican year again mid-term for President Obama. What makes you so confident that democrats can hold the seat?
Olson: Well, democrats in Iowa are in an even stronger position than we were coming out of the 2008 election. As you know there was historic turnout during the 2012 presidential election. 40,000 more Iowans voted for President Obama in 2012 than did in 2008. And I really think 2008 was a lot about who President Obama is and was and 2012 was about his agenda, the things that he was able to accomplish in Washington and his plans going forward. So I really think we're in two different spots and we're in a much stronger position today than we were even coming out of 2008.
Borg: Go ahead.
Obradovich: I was going to say, Mr. Spiker, are the republicans prepared to counter what Mr. Olson describes as a much stronger position than 2008?
Spiker: Off year elections typically the party that holds the White House loses seats in the Senate. So we've got a great opportunity with an open seat in the U.S. Senate to pick it up. Iowa is a swing state. We're a state that sent Harkin and Grassley to Washington. And having it be an off year with an open seat puts us in a wonderful position. And I know the RNC and the National Republican Senatorial Committee are committed to making sure that the republicans win the seat.

IA-Sen: Harkin retiring (updated)

desmoinesdem — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:49:52 GMT

Terrible news for Iowa Democrats: Senator Tom Harkin told Tom Beaumont of the Associated Press that he will retire rather than seek re-election in 2014. Not only will there be an open seat at the top of the ticket, the Iowa Democratic Party won't be able to count on Harkin's millions to fund a decent coordinated GOTV campaign in a midterm election year. Even if Democrats manage to win that statewide race while Governor Terry Branstad's also on the ballot, we will lose an Iowan in charge of a powerful Senate committee. Incoming Iowa Democratic Party Chair Tyler Olson has a difficult road ahead.

Representative Bruce Braley is likely to run for Harkin's seat, and unless either Tom or Christie Vilsack is interested, the primary would probably be uncontested. The silver lining here is a chance to elect a woman to Congress in IA-01. Iowa Senate President Pam Jochum would be my first choice, but there are many capable Democratic women in those 20 counties.

An excerpt from Braley's appearance on Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press" this weekend is after the jump. I'll post further updates there. UPDATE: Much more is below, including the statement from Harkin's office.
Braley taped this show before Harkin's public announcement.

Henderson: Congressman, let's address the speculation head on. Are you running for governor?
Braley: I can tell you with absolute certainty that the average Iowa voter is not thinking anything about the 2014 elections. They're thinking about whether or not the people they have elected to serve them now are doing their jobs. That is what I'm spending my time focusing on. [...]
Lynch: A couple of weeks ago Senator Grassley was a guest on this show and he indicated to us that he expects Senator Harkin to run for re-election in 2016. Has Senator Harkin confided his plans in you? And do they have any bearing on your 2014 plans?
Braley: Well, Senator Harkin is a good friend of mine but he has not told me anything about what his plans are for 2014. He certainly is doing everything that it appears he would have to do to run for re-election. But I'm just like every other Iowa voter waiting to see what happens.
Henderson: How frustrating is it to be a member of Congress and be in the minority? I remember when Fred Grandy ran for governor in 1994 he relished the idea of being an executive who could actually do things.
Braley: Well, I can tell you one of the most frequent questions I get, Kay, is are you still enjoying your job and are you having fun? And I always answer yes to both of those questions because you shouldn't be doing this job unless you can answer both of those questions yes. I'm very proud of the fact that even though I served in the minority last term I was able to reach across the aisle, work with republicans and pass legislation that actually got signed into law by the President. That is not a very common thing for people serving in the minority and yet I think it is a reflection of the work that I put in to develop strong relations with people on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers so that I can try to get things done for the people that I represent.
[...]
Borg: I'd be remiss if I didn't ask this question and I know that you're not really trying to look into the future as far as running for something else. But last week as I was signing off this program and telling people, our viewers, that you were going to be our guest this week, Governor Branstad was sitting in that seat. He was our guest last week. And he said, as he heard you were going to be the guest he said, well ask him the next time that you have him, ask him what was the last time that a congressman was elected governor of Iowa. Does something like that go into your psyche when you are considering whether or not you might run for governor, whether or not being a congressman is a good jumping off place?
Braley: Well, it's kind of interesting that he would ask you to ask me that question, Dean. But I can tell you that I had breakfast the day after the inauguration with my good friend Governor Jay Inslee of the state of Washington who served in Congress with me, ran for governor and was elected. I also know that Mike Pence, a republican congressman from Indiana, just got sworn in as Governor of Indiana and my friend Mary Fallin, who came in with my class in 2006, is now the Governor of Oklahoma. So are people in Iowa so different from the people in those three states that they would never consider someone who had served in Congress as a governor? I don't think so. I think for every elected position people evaluate you based on what you have done with your life, what you can do for them to make their lives better and then they decide among candidates who they want to vote for.

UPDATE: Chuck Todd of NBC commented on twitter, "Bottom line: Iowa Sen issue is same whether Harkin runs or not. All about whether IA GOP can dodge King candidacy."

For the record, I think Steve King is smart enough to know that he could never win any statewide race for any Iowa office. But if he is dumb enough to run for U.S. Senate, that would be a huge gift to Iowa Democrats as well as an opportunity to elect someone less embarrassing to represent IA-04.

SECOND UPDATE: John Deeth is already calling IA-01 for Liz Mathis. She's not nearly as well-known outside the Cedar Rapids area, although she is telegenic, and the district does lean Democratic, even in a midterm year.

Keep in mind that Jochum's Iowa Senate district in Dubuque would easily elect a Democrat to replace her. In contrast, Senate district 34 (suburban areas in Linn County) would be a tough hold without Mathis. So Democrats could lose the Iowa Senate majority if Mathis runs for Congress.

Regardless of who is more electable, I prefer Jochum on substance. She is one of the best in the legislature and has done incredible things in her life.

WHO-TV's Dave Price: "So much for all signs pointing to @SenatorHarkin running again. Big $ in bank. Fundraiser nxt month with Lady Gaga. Good poker face."

THIRD UPDATE: Bad form by the Des Moines Register and Jennifer Jacobs, reporting on Harkin's retirement without giving Beaumont (formerly of the Register) credit for this scoop: "Tom Harkin, Iowa's powerful Democratic U.S. senator, won't seek re-election in two years, he told The Des Moines Register this morning."

FOURTH UPDATE: You have to wonder whether the Senate Democratic cave on filibuster reform affected Harkin's decision on another six years. He would have been re-elected easily.

The National Journal is speculating that Tom Latham may run for the Senate seat. I'm not convinced he would give up an almost sure thing in IA-03 for a statewide race he could lose.

Apparently Latham released a statement this morning saying he "respects" Harkin's choice as "looks forward to continuing to working with him" during the next two years. I would post the statement here, but it's not on Latham's website, and his press secretary has refused my multiple requests to be added to their media distribution list. (Ooooh, scary liberal blogger!)

FIFTH UPDATE: Branstad should probably stay neutral in the U.S. Senate primary, given the way Republicans have rejected his preferred candidates in several races (Senate district 6, Senate district 36, most recently House district 52). But the governor has expressed concerns about King's electability statewide, so he may not be able to keep quiet if Republicans are poised to nominate someone way out there for the Senate race.

SIXTH UPDATE: I think King knows better than to run in a statewide race, but can you imagine how much national Republican strategists are hyperventilating about the prospect of him getting an even bigger megaphone? Here's King talking to Radio Iowa a few days ago:

"The people that are for some version of let me say 'waiving immigration law'...they have always been that way and now they are political opportunists," King says. "For me, I've taken the oath to uphold the constitution and that includes the rule of law and I don't want to reward people for breaking the law." [...]
"In the center this, the American people want the rule of law respected and if you reward lawbreakers, you're going to get more lawbreakers," King says. "That's just how it is and we learned that from the 1986 Amnesty Act that was signed by Ronald Reagan, one of only about two times that he let me down."
King says Republicans can "moderate" their tone when talking about minorities, including Latinos, but King says the GOP should "reject identity politics."
"We can't compromise principle for political expediency," King says.

Public Policy Polling noted that in its last Iowa poll, Steve King's statewide favorable/unfavorable numbers were 29/34: "But Republicans (57/8) like him more than Tom Latham (36/13).'"

SEVENTH UPDATE: Iowa Democratic Party officials kicked The Iowa Republican blogger Jeff Patch out of their meeting this morning after the news broke:

Party officials heard the news just before the start of the party's State Central Committee meeting Sat. morning. Michael Hunt, the party's communications director, kicked this reporter out of the meeting just after the news broke. Hunt said party officials decided TheIowaRepublican.com was not a legitimate news outlet even though they agreed days in advance to let a reporter attend, outgoing chairwoman Sue Dvorsky and incoming chairman Tyler Olson welcomed the reporter, and staffers offered this journalist coffee and the building's Wi-Fi access code.
At around 9:30 a.m. when the story hit the Associated Press wire, Des Moines Register political reporter Jennifer Jacobs jumped up out of her chair and raced out of the room to take a phone call. Harkin told the Register that he decided against running for reelection Wednesday. "I'm going to learn to dance," he said.
Hunt sheepishly informed this reporter that he had to leave while panicked Democrats wondered aloud what was happening. No other reporters attended the meeting, which Democrats had said would likely be a boring, pro forma session.

EIGHTH UPDATE: Harkin's office issue this press release today (emphasis in original).

CUMMING, Iowa - Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today issued the following statement on his plans for the future, including his decision not to seek reelection for his U.S. Senate term expiring in 2014. In doing so, he thanked Iowans for their dedication over the course of his career in public service and outlined his agenda for the HELP Committee over the next two years:
"I have been thinking hard about the decision whether to run for a sixth term in the United States Senate for a number of months - even more these last few weeks. I've reached a decision, and what I've decided really boils down to two things," said Harkin. "First, I'm going to fulfill a promise that I made to my wife Ruth, and that I also made to myself. It's a promise that we're going to do certain things together - and that we're going to live together in a way we've often talked about - before it gets too late. That's a decision I believe many Iowans can relate to, either because of their own circumstances, or perhaps those of their parents. I have the privilege to be able to make this decision on my own terms, which not everyone can, and I'm deeply grateful to the people of Iowa that I do have that opportunity. I've been extremely fortunate. I was born here in Cumming in modest circumstances. My father was a coal-miner with just an 8th-grade education. My mother arrived to this country as an immigrant with virtually no earthly possessions. This state and this country have allowed me to enjoy a life and career beyond anything I imagined as a boy or young man.
"Second, I'm 73 years old right now. At the end of this term I'll be 75. When the current Congress is over, I will have served in the United States House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate for a total of 40 years. After 40 years, I just feel it's somebody else's turn. I can't put into words what an honor it is to serve Iowa. And I don't by any means plan to retire completely from public life at the end of this Congress. But I am going to make way for someone new in this Senate seat. I think that is right not just for me, but for Iowa, as well."
In announcing his plans, Harkin said that over the next two years in Congress, he would continue to advance a policy agenda that benefits Iowa. Among his priorities:
• Moving forward with bills to ensure that all Americans are able to achieve the promise of a quality education - beginning in early childhood, continuing through elementary and high school, and culminating with higher education.
• Working to significantly increase the employment of individuals with disabilities, in order to continue to fulfill the promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
• Advancing his proposal of a new type of pension plan, the USA Retirement Fund, to provide Americans with a secure source of retirement income for life.
• Ensuring the successful implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
As an appropriator and as chair of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds health, education, and labor, Harkin would ensure these initiatives have the funding necessary for implementation. So too would he continue to advance farm policy that improves, and strengthens a number of initiatives that we included in previous farm bills to assist and promote opportunities for farmers and good nutrition for consumers through farmers markets and increased local production and marketing of food.
"More than 40 years ago, I came to Washington with a simple goal: help people. It was that goal that has inspired me throughout my career and one that will continue to inspire my work. Iowans entrusted me with a great responsibility when they first elected me to public office in 1974. It is a responsibility I have never forgotten as I represented them in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate," Harkin concluded.
Tom Harkin has represented Iowa in Congress for 38 years. First winning election to the U.S. House in 1974, he represented Iowa's Fifth Congressional District until 1984, when he challenged an incumbent Senator and won. Iowans returned him to the Senate in 1990, 1996, 2002 and 2008. He is the first Iowa Democrat to win as many consecutives terms in the U.S. Senate.

Harkin has a lengthy record of achievements, among the highlights of his career:
• Advancing the Rights of Individuals with Disabilities;
• Strengthening the Middle Class through Health, Education, and Retirement Security Policies and Investments;
• Promoting a Strong Agriculture Economy, Sound Conservation, and Renewable Energy;
• Protecting Human Rights and Combatting the Worst Forms of Child Labor;
• Providing Funding to Maintain Modern Schools & Access to Healthier Communities;
• Ensuring Iowans have access to Disaster Relief and Flood Prevention and Mitigation;
• In Iowa, his office holds a record of strong constituent services, having logged its 100,000th constituent case earlier this year.

NINTH UPDATE: Steve Deace doesn't think King will run, thinks Latham would be strong and has some interesting thoughts about a possible GOP convention to select a U.S. Senate candidate.

Don't underestimate Congressman Tom Latham. If the relationship between the Republican Party establishment and the grassroots in Iowa were a Facebook status it would be "it's complicated." Branstad may be the only governor in America in either party who has absolutely no control of his own state party whatsoever. Any candidate seen as "his guy" is going to have a very hard time winning a primary. But Latham is a guy with an establishment temperament but also a fairly conservative voting record (I'm a conservative complainer, and I can't remember the last time I complained about him). He may be one guy that could easily coalesce the party for a united front next fall, and he just defeated former Democrat Congressman Leonard Boswell in a new district in what was otherwise a bad year for Iowa Republicans.
Furthermore, Iowa law provides a wildcard. If no candidate gets at least 35% in a statewide primary campaign then the nomination is determined via convention. Keep in mind that in 2008 the Republicans avoided this scenario in the U.S. Senate primary by less than one half of one percent.
It's no secret there is zero love lost between Republican Party of Iowa Chairman A.J. Spiker and his Ron Paul-style state central committee and the establishment, big government Branstad Administration. If the nomination goes to convention then Spiker and his state central committee will wield a lot of influence. Many of the delegates are their people, and they will determine all the rules.
In fact, at that stage convention delegates can pick any candidate they want as the Republican U.S. Senate nominee - whether they ran in the primary or not. For example, they could pick a name like successful Campaign for Liberty activist and state party treasurer Drew Ivers.

TENTH UPDATE: Braley's office released this statement today.

"Senator Harkin's retirement is a huge loss for the people of Iowa. For over 30 years, Tom Harkin has been a progressive force in Washington. He's dedicated his life to strengthening the middle class and standing up for people without a voice, and his life's work, particularly with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Affordable Care Act, leaves a legacy that few will ever match.
"I'm proud to call Tom Harkin a friend and a mentor. His tireless work ethic and unceasing concern for everyday Iowans will be missed in Congress. Carolyn and I wish Tom and Ruth the best as they embark on their next challenge together."

Former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker told The Iowa Republican blogger Craig Robinson that he is interested in the U.S. Senate race.

Whitaker played football for the Iowa Hawkeyes and ran unsuccessfully against state Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald in 2002. President George W. Bush later named Whitaker U.S. attorney for Iowa's southern district. Since 2009 he has been an attorney in private practice. His law partners include State Representative Chris Hagenow (recently chosen as Iowa House majority whip) and William Gustoff, whom Governor Branstad tried to appoint to the State Judicial Nominating Commission. In 2010, the Whitaker Hagenow law firm also employed Brenna Findley, Steve King's former chief of staff who became Branstad's legal counsel after losing to Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller in 2010.

In other words, Whitaker is very well-connected in Iowa Republican circles. He won't have any trouble raising money for a statewide race.

TENTH UPDATE: More names floating around on the Republican side besides Latham and King, according to Politico: "Iowa State Sen. Brad Zaun, Secretary of State Matt Schultz, Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey, social conservative activist Bob Vander Plaats, Republican Party of Iowa co-chair David Fischer and state GOP finance chairman Drew Ivers (a co-chair of Ron Paul's 2012 campaign in Iowa)."

Northey seems to like his current job. I would be surprised to see him take on the Senate race.

Vander Plaats should know he's not electable but may want another shot at glory.

I see Schultz running for re-election as Secretary of State, but who knows? Open U.S. Senate seats don't come around too often.

Zaun has seemed interested in seeking higher office, but I don't see him as a strong statewide candidate. He couldn't beat Leonard Boswell in IA-03 in 2010, which was the best year in decades for Republicans in U.S. House races. He just stepped down from a leadership position in the Iowa Senate Republican caucus. He didn't raise a lot of money for GOP Senate candidates last year either.

Zaun told WHO-TV's Dave Price he is "seriously considering" the Senate race.

ELEVENTH UPDATE: O.Kay Henderson has the audio of Harkin's remarks to the Iowa Democratic Party's State Central Committee this morning. Excerpt:

"I'm not quitting today," Harkin said. "This is not a time for legacy talks or anything like this. It's a time for looking ahead. It's a time for all of us, now, to renew our vigor, to make sure that we find the best candidate possible and to encourage others, as things start to move around here, that we really get behind these good candidates and bring them in," Harkin said. "And so, this is not a goodbye speech. I'm not saying goodbye folks. I'm going to be very much a part of you for the next two years and beyond. Even after I leave the Senate, I don't intend to get lost some place. I'm very much involved in the policies of our country, meeting that moral test of government that I spoke about when I first started. It's my life, I just am going to do it in a different way now, two years from now." [...]
During an interview with me/Radio Iowa today, Harkin said he had made the decision not to seek reelection before this past week's vote on the filibuster rule in the U.S. Senate. (Harkin sought bigger changes than were made.) Harkin said he's been thinking about retirement since the last election.
"It boils down to two things: a promise I made to my wife, Ruth, and to myself, that we were going to live together and do some things together that we've often talked about, never been able to do, but we want to do it before it's too late. We're both in great health. I have no health problems whatsoever. I'm very blessed in that way. Both of us are, but there are some things that we want to do that we've never been able to do. As you know, this job is pretty all-consuming," Harkin said.

I can't find Harkin's classic television commercial for his 1990 re-election campaign, featuring his brother Frank. But here's an ad from Harkin's 1992 presidential campaign.

Here's another blast from the past: Clinton objecting during the Senate trial of President Bill Clinton in January 1999.

Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) released this statement:

"Senator Harkin's tireless work has improved the well-being of Iowans for more than a generation. Senator Harkin has had a direct impact on the everyday lives of people all across the nation and the globe, not just in Iowa. From his advocacy to improving the lives of people with disabilities, to rewriting the way farmers conserve and protect their land to standing up for human rights, he has been a true leader and statesman. He has truly given a voice to those who are often not heard, rather than serving as a mouthpiece for the powerful and connected.
"His knowledge, compassion and fight cannot be replaced. He has long been my political hero and I have been honored to serve with him these past six years. Terry and I wish Tom and Ruth health, happiness and success in all their future endeavors."

TWELFTH UPDATE: Brad Anderson, a Democratic candidate for Iowa Secretary of State, released this statement today:

"For decades Tom Harkin has been an inspiration to anyone who cares about educating a child, providing opportunities for the disabled, or making America a stronger, healthier country. He has taught us all we can fight real hard for what we believe in and at the same time find a way to work together to pass meaningful, historic legislation. I will miss him in the Senate, but I am confident he will remain a passionate voice any struggling American who needs one."

THIRTEENTH UPDATE: President Barack Obama released this statement today.

By the time Senator Harkin finishes his fifth term, he will have represented the people of Iowa in the United States Congress for an incredible 40 years. He has served in the U.S. Senate longer than any Democrat in Iowa's history. During his tenure, he has fought passionately to improve quality of life for Americans with disabilities and their families, to reform our education system and ensure that every American has access to affordable health care. Senator Harkin will be missed, and Michelle and I join Iowans in thanking him for his long-standing service and wish him and his wife, Ruth, all the best in the future.

Here's another blast from the past: Harkin's speech at the memorial for his good friend Senator Paul Wellstone.

SUNDAY UPDATE: Jennifer Jacobs' piece for the Sunday Des Moines Register quotes unnamed Republican insiders predicting that Latham is the only candidate who could clear the GOP field. In addition to prospects I've mentioned earlier in this post, Jacobs adds a few more possibilities: Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds, former Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn, Iowa Senate Minority Leader Bill Dix, West Des Moines Mayor Steve Gaer, and Polk County Supervisor Bob Brownell.

I think Reynolds will run for governor someday, but I don't see her running for Senate in 2014.

Strawn, Gaer, or Brownell would all face the same problem in a Republican primary: resentment toward Polk County bigwigs. Rank and file Republicans who supported Ron Paul or Rick Santorum for president may also hold a grudge against Strawn over the Iowa caucus results fiasco.

Dix would be an interesting candidate in a primary. We've seen repeatedly that he can raise a lot of money. In this Iowa politics podcast from January 25, James Lynch of the Cedar Rapids Gazette mentioned something I forgot: in 2004, the Republican-controlled Iowa House approved by 99 to 0 a bill granting in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants brought to Iowa as children. (That bill died in the Iowa Senate, also under Republican control at that time.) Lynch pointed out that Dix's opponents used the "DREAM Act" vote against him in the 2006 Republican primary to represent Iowa's first Congressional district. Dix raised the most money for that race but came in second to Mike Whalen in the four-way primary.

LATER UPDATE: Braley's Congressional campaign released this statement on Sunday morning.

"Over the past 24 hours, I've been overwhelmed by the outpouring of encouragement and support from Iowans in every corner of the state urging me to consider a campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2014. Iowans deserve a Senator who will continue Tom Harkin's legacy of strengthening the middle class and standing up for Iowans who don't have a voice. While Senator Harkin's shoes are impossible to fill, over the coming days my family and I will carefully weigh a possible candidacy for Senate."

New year, same old story at Iowa GOP

desmoinesdem — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 18:44:46 GMT

Yesterday the Republican Party of Iowa's State Central Committee voted to ~~keep letting the inmates run the asylum~~ re-elect A.J. Spiker as state party chair and put Ron Paul supporters in other leadership positions.
A former co-chair of Ron Paul's presidential campaign in Iowa, Spiker was elected to complete Matt Strawn's term as state party chair last February, when Strawn stepped down over criticism of how he handled the Iowa caucus results. The Iowa GOP hasn't prospered under Spiker's leadership. Donations from large and small donors are way down. Democrats have overtaken Republicans in voter registrations, and the Iowa Democratic Party was far more successful in mobilizing early voters, helping President Barack Obama defeat Mitt Romney by a larger-than-expected margin in Iowa. Democrats did lose one of their Congressional incumbents but held the Iowa Senate majority and gained a net seven seats in the Iowa House.

At times Spiker has seemed more focused on the long-term goals of the "liberty movement" than on the nuts and bolts of electing Republicans. Iowa's delegation to the Republican National Convention cast most of its votes for Ron Paul despite his third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses. Maybe that's not a negative for central committee members who won their positions thanks to Paul's Iowa organization. But many major donors and party activists would prefer party leaders to keep their eye on the ball.

Outgoing Iowa GOP co-chairman Bill Schickel challenged Spiker, promising to lead a more inclusive "to boost early voting by 40%, increase Republican voter registration and brand the Republican party as the 'party of conservative ideas and solutions.'" Although Governor Terry Branstad did not publicly endorse Schickel, several major donors closely allied with the governor have publicly expressed concern about the Paulinistas' domination. Two months ago, Spiker strongly objected to Branstad's comments about the future of the Iowa GOP's straw poll.

Some of Schickel's promises may be a bit pie in the sky, but I don't see how anyone could claim Spiker earned a two-year term as state party chair. Central Committee member David Chung made the obvious argument for Schickel:

[Then Iowa GOP chair] Ray Hoffman was not the reason we got swept in 2006 and AJ Spiker is not the reason we got swept again in 2012. But, having lead the party to defeat, it was then and is now, time to search for new leadership.

O.Kay Henderson live-blogged the meeting for Radio Iowa and posted a partial audio clip including nominating speeches and comments from Spiker and Schickel. The Iowa Republican blog also liveblogged the proceedings.

Republican National Committeeman Steve Scheffler nominated Spiker, saying he had "quickly earned the respect & trust of the RNC" and is "not afraid to stand up for traditional values." Spiker claimed the Iowa GOP has solid finances and said he has worked with "very closely with Republicans of all philosophies." At the same time, he said he will "never apologize for social conservatism" and will always stand for the party's principles.

Central Committee member Tim Moran nominated Schickel and warned that it is "not sustainable" to continue on the present course. He pointed out during the meeting that between June and October 2012, only 55 individuals donated to the Iowa GOP, giving a total of $30,000. Schickel told the committee they Republicans to admit "conservatives suffered a defeat" in the recent elections. He argued that "dramatic changes" are needed to prevent the party from becoming a "dinosaur." During the Q&A part of the meeting, Schickel made an excellent analogy:

[Central committee member Loras] Schulte still talking. Says it's vital to be unified, asks Schickel his thoughts on that. Schickel says, "The difference this time is, after Buchanan lost, you didn't bring the entire Buchanan team in to run the Republican Party of Iowa." ... "When our chair, our executive director, our finance director, communications director all came from the same campaign... It's disenfranchising to other Republicans..."

Spiker's allies on the state central committee came through for him yesterday. He defeated Schickel by 13 votes to five on the first ballot.

A spirited debate then ensued among three candidates for state party co-chair: former Michele Bachmann staffer Wes Enos, former Ron Paul co-chair David Fischer, and former Linn County GOP Chair Eric Rosenthal. Nominating Enos, central committee member Jamie Johnson pleaded with his colleagues to give registered Republicans across the state one clear sign that "this is not the Ron Paul Party of Iowa, it is the Republican Party of Iowa." Rosenthal talked about grassroots fundraising and person-to-person volunteer work, not just telemarketing. Fischer said he gets along with all kinds of Republicans but added, "I'm not running so that I can be a cheerleader that anybody that hangs an R behind their name... It's our responsibility as party leaders to hold not only Democrats' feet to the fire, but also Republicans..." Enos emphasized the importance of running strong statewide campaigns in 2014 and urged Republicans not to label people as "campaign for liberty" or "social conservatives," for instance.

To me, it seems obvious that the wise course was to throw a bone to Republicans who preferred candidates other than Ron Paul for president. But the vote wasn't even close: 11 for Fischer as party co-chair, four for Rosenthal, three for Enos. Ron Paul supporter John Kabitzke was re-elected treasurer, while Bachmann endorser Mark Doland was elected secretary.

The Iowa GOP's bank balance will no doubt suffer because of what happened yesterday. Governor Branstad's likely re-election campaign may shield Republican candidates from the impact, though. Branstad will raise a ton of money and will run an early voter drive, whether or not the state party's in a position to help. Fortunately for the GOP state legislative candidates, Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen has shown that he can raise a lot of money, and the new Iowa Senate Minority Leader Bill Dix is a strong fundraiser too. I also suspect that major donors will give more money in 2014 to Republican-aligned groups like Nick Ryan's Team Iowa PAC.

The lack of credible leadership at the state party would be a much bigger problem for Republicans if Branstad retires. A divisive gubernatorial primary would likely ensue, with the eventual winner bruised and under-funded. But I'd be shocked if Branstad didn't seek a sixth term.

I will say this for Iowa Republicans, though: at least their central committee truly elects the party leader. In the Iowa Democratic Party, an incumbent governor or senator up for re-election in two years would just choose the party chair, and the state central committee would rubber-stamp that decision.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

P.S. for your "be careful what you wish for" file: The Iowa Republican blog publisher Craig Robinson was the loudest voice for replacing Strawn after last year's caucuses. That blog now laments the Paulinistas' stranglehold on a regular basis.

UPDATE: I was a little surprised that no "faithless" Republican electors cast ballots for Paul instead of Mitt Romney when the electoral college met on January 4. However, keep in mind that Barack Obama carried a bunch of states where Paul loyalists are strongly represented in the GOP (such as Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Colorado). If Romney had won any of those states, we might have seen a vote or two for Paul in the electoral college. In September, an Iowa woman was pressured to step down as a candidate for elector after she disclosed that she would vote for Paul if Romney carried Iowa.

SECOND UPDATE: Moran has resigned from the Iowa GOP's State Central Committee because he is moving out of the fourth Congressional district. The Iowa Republican's Kevin Hall reported,

"The timing worked out really well, personally and politically," Moran said. "The opportunity to relocate is not one to pass up, while at the same time, we have an incoming administration at the State Party that has no interest in the "mechanics" of organization."
Moran is referencing comments made by new RPI Co-Chair David Fischer on Saturday that "there's too much focus on the mechanics" of winning elections. As someone who has been extensively involved in campaign work, Moran vehemently disagrees with Fischer.
"Mechanics and organization are the fundamental needs that candidates and campaigns require when working with a political organization," Moran said. "It's unfortunate the incoming administration is not going to put a high premium on basic campaign tools."
Tim Moran's political resume includes working on Bob Vander Plaats' 2002 and 2006 gubernatorial campaigns, Mitt Romney's 2008 presidential campaign, Bill Northey's 2010 Secretary of Agriculture campaign and serving as the political director for Congressman Steve King's 2008 and 2010 campaigns. He said he plans to remain active in the Republican Party.
"It is good for the Party to remember who wins elections - the grassroots," Moran wrote in an email to Republican activists and officials. "That is where I look to maximize my energy in the coming years."

How future presidential candidates voted on the fiscal cliff deal

desmoinesdem — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:20:00 GMT

Iowa GOP Chair A.J. Spiker spoke for many conservative Republicans yesterday when he urged members of Congress to vote against the "ill-advised" deal to avoid tax increases. "The so called "Fiscal Cliff Deal" will only hurt middle class families, continue out of control government spending and fails to address the $16.5 Trillion Federal deficit [sic]," Spiker said in a statement.

Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04, IA-03 in the new Congress) and Steve King (IA-05, IA-04 in the new Congress) voted against this bill. So did likely 2016 presidential candidates Marco Rubio and Rand Paul in the U.S. Senate. However, in a surprising move to me, House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan voted for the deal. I figured Ryan would end up with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and most other House Republicans, who objected to the lack of spending cuts. Ryan later told reporters, "I am not afraid of anything, I think it needed to pass. [...] I wanted to stop a big tax increase."

Any comments on the long-term political implications of yesterday's votes are welcome in this thread. Rubio has already warned that the deal will hurt small businesses and future economic growth. He is wrong about the impact on small businesses, but economic growth probably will be weak during the next few years, which will vindicate his views in the eyes of conservatives.

UPDATE: A few more House Republicans who voted no may run for president in 2016 or 2020: Mike Pence, just elected governor of Indiana; Tim Scott, just appointed U.S. senator to replace Jim DeMint of South Carolina; Jeff Flake, just elected U.S. senator from Arizona.

Ames straw poll hatefest

desmoinesdem — Tue, 27 Nov 2012 02:05:00 GMT

As Republicans in Iowa and across the country ponder how to improve their chances in the next presidential election, bashing the Ames straw poll is all the rage.

Most strategists and politicians recognize that the Republican Party of Iowa needs to dump or radically reinvent its largest pre-caucus fundraiser, traditionally held during the August before the Iowa caucuses. But a few people can't read the writing on the wall.
Governor Terry Branstad made a splash last week in this interview with the Wall Street Journal.

"I think the straw poll has outlived its usefulness," Mr. Branstad said of the 33-year-old GOP ritual. "It has been a great fundraiser for the party but I think its days are over." [...]
In an interview, Gov. Branstad pointed to Ms. Bachmann's rapid rise and fall in 2011 as Exhibit A for why the straw poll no longer makes sense. The Bachmann campaign invested heavily in the one-day event, busing in thousands of supporters from around Iowa and hiring singers like Randy Travis to entertain them in a huge tent.
The Minnesota Republican beat libertarian Rep. Ron Paul of Texas by 150 votes, but never caught fire in Iowa. She came in a very distant sixth in the January Iowa caucuses, getting just 5% of the vote.
"You saw what happened the last time," Gov. Branstad said. "I don't think candidates will spend the time or money to participate in a straw poll if they don't see any real benefit coming out of it."

Branstad's comments spurred a wave of national media speculation about the straw poll, but he was hardly breaking new ground. The previous week, all the guests on Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press" program agreed that change needs to come. Doug Gross had long been in the "dump Ames" camp. Neither Republican National Committeewoman Tamara Scott (a prominent social conservative) nor Republican blogger Craig Robinson defended the straw poll as currently organized.

Henderson: Mrs. Scott, in August of 2015 will there be a straw poll in Ames or is that an antiquated notion that we should just never have one again?
Scott: I can't answer that. That would be up to the matters of the party to decide.
Henderson: But aren't you a party leader now?
Scott: I am the national committeewoman but I don't think I get that kind of authority yet.
Henderson: Do you think it's a --
Borg: You have a personal opinion on it.
Scott: I think it served a purpose. In 1998 I was thrilled to be there. It got people out. It got involved, people were involved. It was good to see the numbers. I think obviously in the last year it became a little more of a who had the money to purchase what spot where and bring in what entertainer and I hate to see politics reduced to that. I think that we have lost some of the issues and some of the ground because it has become such a long, drawn out process here in Iowa and I think that feeds to the apathy of the Iowa people.
Henderson: Mr. Gross has made his thoughts on this well known. He thinks it should end. Mr. Robinson, do you think the nail should be driven --
Robinson: I do agree and in fact, I actually think it is the candidates themselves who will determine if there is a straw poll that year, not the party. And I think its time has come and I think there are things that can replace it that would be similar but we can't have something that culls the herd, so to speak, like it is now.
Obradovich: Why not have a big event, let them all speak and not take a vote?
Robinson: Right, no I think you have to eliminate the vote. The idea to bring in a presidential debate was kind of born right after the 2007 straw poll where you can kind of give candidates a different way to play it. And so I think we have to reassess and maybe change our approach on some things.

Today the editors of the conservative National Review called for ditching the event.

Though Branstad will not ultimately decide whether the poll returns in 2015 - that decision is up to the state's party and the candidates, among others - we hope that he's prescient. Ames does more damage than justice to the nominating process, and ensures that the country's first view of the Grand Old Party's latest presidential crop is through a distorted lens.
Consider that in the poll's 30-year-plus history it has correctly prefigured the eventual nominee just twice, in the persons of Senator Bob Dole and Governor George W. Bush, in 1995 and 1999, respectively, and only the latter went on - narrowly - to the White House. This go-round, the poll was won by Representative Michele Bachmann, who would falter in the early debates and capture just 5 percent of total primary votes. Representative Ron Paul, of being-Ron Paul fame, finished less than a percentage point behind in second. Whatever one thinks of Paul's import or his place in conservative conversation, he was never in danger of winning the Republican nomination, in this or any neighboring universe. [...]
In fact, the spotlight is part of the problem. The media as much as anyone have imbued the story of Ames with an import that the reality of Ames has not justified - and cannot justify. And they help sell the fiction that the straw poll highlights the divergent preferences of the "grassroots" and the "establishment," and not the divergent preferences of a hand-picked, bused-in sample and the Republican electorate nationwide. This fiction now infects the debate about Ames's future, because the Ames we read about is not the non-predictive, distortive Ames of reality, but a mythic creature in a story. And like so many mythic creatures, this one needs slaying.

Any clear-thinking Iowa Republican should recognize that continuing the status quo is not an option. Serious presidential candidates will skip the event rather than risk ending up like Tim Pawlenty.

To listen to Iowa GOP Chair Spiker, though, you'd think Branstad dreamed up this idea out of nowhere.

"Gov. Branstad is wrong, and this is not a decision he will make anyway," said a peeved A.J. Spiker, chairman of the state GOP. "It is a decision the party and the candidates will make."

Diplomacy was never the Ron Paul crowd's strong suit. Then, when he should have been cooling off, Spiker ratcheted up his invective against his own party's governor.

Spiker sees the moves against the straw poll as part of "a continued effort to make sure that the political industry selects candidates rather than the grassroots." Spiker maintains the straw poll "is probably the best opportunity ... to plant some grassroots and put in place a infrastructure for the Iowa Caucus" and believes the push to end it are parallel to the controversial efforts in Tampa by the Romney campaign for "more consolidation of power" among party elites.

I think Spiker's analogy is apt, but for a different reason. Like his deep concern about Ron Paul delegates from Maine before the Republican National Convention, Spiker's commitment to the straw poll indicates that he and like-minded "Paulinistas" are more focused on building influence within the GOP than on helping Republican candidates win presidential elections.

Conservative talk radio host Steve Deace, a leading voice against moving to the middle, was incensed by Branstad's comments about the straw poll.

"The only people who hate conservatives more than Democrats are people like Terry Branstad," Deace said. He went on to scathingly describe the Republican governor's political influence in the state saying, "I'd almost rather have Barack Obama's endorsement in 2016 than Terry Branstad's; it tells all the Ron Paul and social conservatives who not to vote for."
In Deace's eyes, Branstad's statement is "a preemptive strike aimed at conservatives" to keep establishment control of the Republican Party, and specifically aimed at "trying to stop Rand Paul."

That's about what I'd expect from a guy who blames Mitt Romney for the "traditional marriage" movement's election-day setbacks.

Speaking to reporters today, Branstad floated an idea for holding several events around the state, rather than a single fundraiser in Ames.

Branstad reiterated that a party fundraiser that increases the visibility of candidates in the months before the caucuses is a good thing. It's the presence of a preference poll that doesn't represent the true caucus electorate that is problematic.
"The event, I think, is great," he said. "In fact, what I've suggested is let's replace one event with relational group of events and give people in all different parts of the state and opportunity to participate and see the candidates."

Sounds reasonable to me, although the candidates might be reluctant to add more joint events to the many debates scheduled during the run-up to the caucuses.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

Poll suggests Iowa Supreme Court justices "poised for victory"

desmoinesdem — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:50:00 GMT

The first statewide poll on the 2012 judicial retention elections suggests that the four Iowa Supreme Justices who will be on the ballot this November have good chances of being retained. However, the pollster does not distinguish between support for retaining the justices as a group and support for Justice David Wiggins, whom opponents of same-sex marriage rights are trying to defeat.
The Justice Not Politics coalition commissioned the poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, which surveyed 600 "likely voters" between August 22 and 26. The polling memo is here (pdf). James Q. Lynch reported for the Cedar Rapids Gazette,

The Republican wave in 2010 and "asymmetrical spending" by the opponents of marriage equality created an unusually hostile electorate in 2010, according to Anna Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, which conducted the poll Aug. 22-26.
"The environment is quite different today; the Iowa Supreme Court Justices are poised for a victory in November," Greenberg predicted.
The poll, which has a margin of error of +/- 4 points, found a plurality of voters - 47 percent - now favor retaining the four justices who will be on the ballot this fall. Another 24 percent favor ousting the justices and 25 percent are not sure.
The poll found a "massive" shift in public support for same-sex marriage since the 2010 vote, Greenberg said.
She found 48 percent of Iowans now support the Varnum v. Brien decision and marriage equality. That's an increase from 37 percent in 2009.
Also, Greenberg found little anger at the Supreme Court as a result of the decision. The court gets a net positive rating - 41 percent favorable, 18 percent unfavorable - and a plurality approve of its job performance.

Cautionary note: this poll appears to have asked respondents how they would vote on all the justices. However, social conservatives plan to focus their campaign against Justice David Wiggins, the only justice up for retention who concurred with the 2009 Varnum v Brien ruling. (Governor Terry Branstad appointed the other three Supreme Court justices on the ballot in early 2011.) Wiggins is almost guaranteed to receive a lower proportion of "yes" votes than Edward Mansfield, Thomas Waterman, and Bruce Zager. Among Iowa Bar Association members, Wiggins has the least support for retention, and the "No on Wiggins" campaign is likely to persuade some Iowans who don't yet know who he is.

According to the polling memo,

awareness of the retention election is quite low. Only 32 percent know that the Supreme Court Justices will be on the ballot this fall, more think they will not (46 percent). Among the most informed voters, 57 percent would retain the justices.

That suggests that the anti-retention position has lots of room to gain as Iowans who oppose marriage equality become aware of the retention vote. A "No Wiggins" bus tour kicks off on September 24, sponsored by "CitizenLink, the Family Leader, the National Organization for Marriage and CatholicVote.org." If the 2010 campaign is any indication, so-called "activist judge" Wiggins will also be the focus of statewide television advertising.

Justice Not Politics Action, led by former Lieutenant Governor Sally Pederson, will run a "Yes on Retention" campaign, starting with "grassroots voter outreach [...] events in Iowa City on Saturday and Indianola on Sunday." Many Democrats will descend on Indianola this Sunday for Senator Tom Harkin's annual Steak Fry.

The Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll indicates that the leader of the No on Wiggins crowd isn't very popular. O.Kay Henderson reported for Radio Iowa,

The poll found 36% of those surveyed have an "unfavorable view" of Bob Vander Plaats, the leader of Iowans for Freedom.
That's the group that led the successful 2010 campaign against the three justices and have revived their effort for 2012. According to the polling firm, the "negatives" for Vander Plaats have climbed 20 points since 2009. Nineteen percent said they had a favorable view of Vander Plaats, a three-time Republican candidate for governor who now is the executive director of The Family Leader.

Here's how support for the Varnum v Brien Iowa Supreme Court decision breaks down in the new poll:

Among all respondents, 35 percent strongly favor the decision and 13 percent somewhat favor it; 35 percent strongly oppose the decision and 8 percent somewhat oppose it.

Among Democrats surveyed, 59 percent strongly favor the decision and 15 percent somewhat favor it; 12 percent strongly oppose the decision and 7 percent somewhat oppose it.

Among Republicans surveyed, 7 percent strongly favor the decision and 9 percent somewhat favor it; 63 percent strongly oppose the decision and 11 percent somewhat oppose it.

Among independents, 35 percent strongly favor the decision and 16 percent somewhat favor it; 33 percent strongly oppose the decision and 7 percent somewhat oppose it.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention that in every general election, a certain percentage of Iowans cast ballots without completing the reverse side, where the judicial retention lines are located. For that reason, I wouldn't assume that every "likely voter" will cast a vote for or against retaining the four Iowa Supreme Court justices. If opponents of Varnum are more energized about the retention vote, Wiggins could lose despite the fact that a majority of voters either support his retention or do not care.

Ron Paul loyalist resigns as Iowa GOP candidate for elector (updated)

desmoinesdem — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 11:40:00 GMT

One of the Republican Party of Iowa's candidates for elector resigned yesterday after indicating that she would cast her electoral college ballot for Ron Paul in the event that Mitt Romney wins Iowa this November.
Iowa has six votes in the electoral college, so the Iowa Democratic Party and Iowa GOP each selected six candidates for elector earlier this year. Casting a ballot in the electoral college is an honor usually given to office-holders or longtime party activists.

Typically, it goes without saying that candidates for elector plan to vote for their party's presidential nominee. But in yet another sign of the Ron Paul faction's total domination of the Iowa Republican convention process, Melinda Wadsley was selected as a candidate for elector from Iowa's fourth district. She was one of three candidates for elector from around the country featured in this Associated Press story published on September 13:

"They've never given Ron Paul a fair shot, and I'm disgusted with that. I'd like to show them how disgusted I am," said Melinda Wadsley, an Iowa mother of three who was selected as a Republican elector earlier this year. She said Paul is the better choice and noted that the Electoral College was founded with the idea that electors wouldn't just mimic the popular vote.

Wadsley's words didn't sit well with Republicans, because if Romney wins a close race, even a few "faithless electors" could keep him from reaching the 270 votes needed in the electoral college. By yesterday afternoon, Iowa GOP Chair A.J. Spiker had announced her resignation "effective immediately." Wadsley explained to the Associated Press,

I have always been a straight-ticket Republican, and for the first time in my life I am an undecided voter, therefore, I need to resign my position as a Republican presidential elector.

Like John Deeth, I feel sympathy for the Romney campaign staffer who "has to comb through the elector slates in every state Romney could convceivably win," looking for potential faithless electors.

That person won't need to worry about the other Iowa candidates for elector. Activist Joni Scotter endorsed Romney before the Iowa caucuses. State Senators Mark Chelgren and Jack Whitver both supported Michele Bachmann for president but told the Des Moines Register yesterday that they are committed to supporting Romney in the electoral college. Ditto for Iowa Finance Authority Director David Jamison, who caucused for Rick Santorum. The last Iowa candidate for elector, Kurt Brown, was also a Santorum supporter. He told Jennifer Jacobs that he's "99 percent committed to Romney" but is still studying the rules. My hunch: that means Brown is a solid vote for Romney if his vote is needed to help Romney get to 270 in the electoral college. However, if Romney wins Iowa while losing the electoral college to President Barack Obama, it sounds like Brown might consider casting his ballot for Santorum on December 17.

This fiasco hasn't helped the Iowa GOP's image, but there's not a lot detractors can do about it, since Paul supporters have a solid bloc on the party's State Central Committee.

P.S. - I received this press release from the Liberty Iowa PAC on September 14:

Iowa Liberty Elector Resigns
RNC leaves Republican voters disenfranchised
Chantilly, VA - Melinda Wadsley, Director of Development for Liberty Iowa has resigned her position as presidential elector for the Republican Party. Melinda is a life long Republican from Iowa and has always voted straight ticket.
The recent decision to resign was in response to a request from A.J. Spiker, Chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa.
"The Iowa GOP has made it clear they will work tirelessly to ensure all 6 electoral votes go for Romney. As I can no longer in good conscious vote for Romney, I feel the need to step aside, out of respect for A.J. and the Republican Party of Iowa."
Many liberty supporters have expressed outrage after the events that occurred at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida.
"I am highly disappointed with both the Romney campaign and the RNC for actions taken at the Republican National Convention" said Melinda Wadsley. "They lost a valuable opportunity to unite the party and welcome the grassroots supporters into their ranks."
The RNC passed rules that would limit the grassroots effort and would allow presidential campaigns more authority on delegates chosen. This centralization of authority is causing lifelong Republicans, such as Melinda, to question the direction the party has moved.
"Nothing like this has ever happened before in living memory at a Republican National Convention." said Morton Blackwell, the youngest delegate for Goldwater in 1964 and Special Assistant to President Reagan for Public Liaison.
"The liberty movement is only getting bigger and stronger, for this reason we at Liberty Iowa will continue to work within the Republican Party," said Adil Khan, Interim Executive Director of Liberty Iowa. "It is vital that we bring disenfranchised liberty voters back to the Republican Party as a vital base of conservative grassroots."

LATE UPDATE: On September 22, the Republican Party of Iowa's State Central Committee chose Lanny Hustedt as the new candidate for elector in the fourth Congressional district.

Hustedt finished second in the balloting behind Melinda Wadsley at the district convention. [...]
Hustedt told TheIowaRepublican that Mitt Romney can count on his "100 percent" support. "I'm very humbled by it," Hustedt said. "It's an important job and I just felt that most people put their names in for delegates or alternates, so I decided to do this."
Iowa has six electoral votes. Hustedt won on the first ballot with nine votes. He is a former chairman of the Wright County GOP and co-chair of the O'Brien County GOP. Lyon County GOP Chair Cody Hoefert garnered five votes. The other two went to college Republican Josh Streif.

Final Republican convention discussion thread: Clint Eastwood and Mitt Romney

desmoinesdem — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 14:55:00 GMT

Mitt Romney formally accepted the Republican Party's nomination for president last night. A surprise appearance by actor and director Clint Eastwood overshadowed Romney's speech.
So far, television ratings for this RNC convention have been much lower than in 2008, when Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was a new and exciting face for the party. To generate some buzz about Thursday night's prime-time lineup, Republican officials were touting an unnamed special guest. That turned out to be Eastwood, who delivered this strange dialogue with an empty chair (representing President Barack Obama).

Mother Jones published the transcript of Eastwood's speech here.

I bet Romney's handlers regretted the decision to send Eastwood on stage without an approved script. Last night the Romney campaign released this written statement:

"Judging an American icon like Clint Eastwood through a typical political lens doesn't work. His ad libbing was a break from all the political speeches, and the crowd enjoyed it. He rightly pointed out that 23 million Americans out of work or underemployed is a national disgrace and it's time for a change."

Amazingly, Romney's people ran their biographical video on the GOP nominee before major network coverage began last night. How could they relegate their best effort to promote Romney to cable networks and let the larger broadcast audience watch Eastwood? Lots of people were scratching their heads.

I only saw parts of Romney's acceptance speech, but from what I read he said very little about his accomplishments as governor of Massachusetts. Typically, when a governor runs for president, the candidate's record as leader of a state forms the centerpiece of the campaign.

Any comments about the Republican convention are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: O.Kay Henderson reported,

Convention delegate Roger Leahy of Fairfield calls the Romney/Ryan ticket the "lesser of two evils" and he may vote for a third party candidate.
"I'm going to still be thinking about it 'til November whatever it is, 6th or 2nd or something," Leahy said this morning, with a laugh. "I don't know. I mean, I've never actually voted for the lesser of the evils. I've always voted for who I thought was the best candidate on the ballot and I'm still looking at that and I think there may be other candidates on the ballot." [...]
Delegate and Ron Paul supporter Jonas Cutler of West Des Moines said today he'll "work for the Republican Party of Iowa" - plus, his daughter is in a Romney campaign commercial - but Cutler will not say whether he'll vote for Mitt Romney.
"We are the future of the Republican Party here," Cutler replied the fifth time he was asked if he'd vote for Romney.[...]
State Senator Brad Zaun of Urbandale - an alternate delegate to the convention who points out his candidate, Michele Bachmann, lost, too - said he's had "disturbing" conversations with many of the Ron Paul supporters from Iowa.
"I've had several of them say, 'I don't even know if I'm going to vote,' and that really upsets me," Zaun said. "Their candidate lost and they're supposed to be representatives of the Republican Party and they need to get behind Mitt Romney."

SECOND UPDATE: Henderson also reported Iowa GOP Chair A.J. Spiker's commnts regarding new rules adopted by the RNC. According to Spiker, tough penalties for states that try to schedule their primaries or caucuses very early are the "biggest protection Iowa's first-in-the-nation status has ever had."

Under the new GOP rules, a state that schedules its presidential primary or caucus before the end of February would only be able to send 12 delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention.
"So (a state) like California that went into February would have 12 delegates instead of over 150, so it's a big penalty," Spiker says. "That's one of the biggest, positive things that come out of the convention that impacts the first-in-the-nation status of the Republican Party of Iowa."
States that have moved ahead on the presidential election calendar in the past, though, have escaped serious party penalties. By the time a national convention comes around, nervous presidential nominees do not wish to offend voters in states like Florida who are crucial for victory in November. GOP Convention delegates ratified the new get-tough-on-leapfroggers rule on Tuesday. Spiker says a bid to give the party's next presumed presidential nominee the ability to dictate who could be a delegate at the 2016 convention has been thwarted.
"I believe that speaks volumes of a lot of us put in to make sure that it was the people rather than the politicians picking the delegates," Spiker says. "It was a tremendous success of a broad coalition: Tea Party people, Evangelicals, moderates, Ron Paul people - it was just a broad coalition to make sure that the grassroots continued to be the leader of that process."

Republican National Convention links and discussion thread (updated)

desmoinesdem — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:20:00 GMT

Normally I am a political party convention junkie, but I haven't watched any of the Republican National Convention so far. Judging from media accounts of the prime-time program, it seems that Ann Romney gave a decent speech, dwelling on the theme of love, after which New Jersey Governor Chris Christie talked mostly about himself and said Republicans need to seek respect, not love. He also praised presidential nominee Mitt Romney for being willing to tell the hard truths about how to fix the deficit, but naturally, didn't share any details on those tough budget cuts to come.

Any comments related to the GOP convention are welcome in this thread. Many links and news stories related to the Iowa delegation are after the jump.
Romney's people tapped Iowa Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds as convention secretary, meaning that she got to call the roll of delegates. Was it a way to counteract the storyline of Ron Paul supporters dominating Iowa's delegation? During the roll call, Iowa cast 22 votes for Paul and only six for Romney. But Iowa GOP Chair A.J. Spiker said in a written statement that the state party will "unite" and "work tirelessly to ensure that Iowa's six electoral votes go to Governor Romney in November."

Radio Iowa's O.Kay Henderson was there as Paul addressed roughly 400 supporters, including most of Iowa's delegation, on Monday morning.

"The victories aren't there and you say, 'Complete defeat.' But, no, I think we keep winning. The harder they try to silence us, the harder they try to push us around, the harder they try to take our delegates away, I think it's an incentive," Paul said.
"It is a tremendous incentive for everybody to work harder." [...]
While the other major competitors for the Republican Party's presidential nomination have released their delegates and endorsed Mitt Romney, Paul has not. Paul never once mentioned Romney during his remarks this morning and he urged his supporters to continue their efforts to remake the Republican Party.
"All the victories are important, but they aren't the end game," Paul said. "The end game is who wins the war and, if you see it as an intellectual war, I'll tell you what: we are way ahead."

I laugh every time I read the grumbling about Iowa's delegates getting stuck in a faraway hotel, 45 minutes to an hour's drive from the convention site.

Speaking of Paul supporters, there are still hard feelings over the Republican National Committee's decision not to seat some people in the Maine delegation. That led to an awkward moment Tuesday afternoon in the convention hall, described by Jack Hitt of Harper's (click through for video):

The RonPaulites, whose furious devotion to a single idea have made them the Ellen Jamesians of the right, were protesting a decision by RNC officials not to seat members of the Maine delegation, which was split between Paul and Romney supporters following rule changes made just prior to the convention. There were energetic shouts of "Aye!" and "Nay!" as a Puerto Rican party functionary-Zoraida Fonalledas, the chairwoman of the Committee on Permanent Organization-took her turn at the main-stage lectern. As she began speaking in her accented English, some in the crowd started shouting "U.S.A.!
The chanting carried on for nearly a minute while most of the other delegates and the media stood by in stunned silence. The Puerto Rican correspondent turned to me and asked, "Is this happening?" I said I honestly didn't know what was happening-it was astonishing to see all the brittle work of narrative construction that is a modern political convention suddenly crack before our eyes. None of us could quite believe what we were seeing: A sea of twentysomething bowties and cowboy hats morphing into frat bros apparently shrieking over (or at) a Latina. RNC chairman Reince Priebus quickly stepped up and asked for order and respect for the speaker, suggesting that, yeah, what we had just seen might well have been an ugly outburst of nativism.

Romney's campaign team must be relieved that didn't happen during prime time television coverage, although it's possible that the chants of "U.S.A!" were designed to drown out Ron Paul supporters, not a speaker with a Puerto Rican accent.

Loud cries of "Boo" and" Seat them now" filled the convention floor as repeated calls to contest a credentials committee report fell on deaf ears after it passed by a voice vote. A majority of the delegates from six states were required to call for a roll call vote on the credentials report, submitting their intent to do so in writing in advance. Despite Maine the delegates' claims, no such support came from their colleagues from other states.
The boos disrupted the speech of Puerto Rico National Committeewoman Zori Fonalledas, who was set to announce the nomination of Speaker of the House John Boehner as permanent convention chairman.
Priebus repeatedly called on the crowd to silence themselves, as dozens of men wearing earpieces converged on the shouting Paul supporters - some delegates, and even more expressing their displeasure from the arena's upper decks.
As Boehner moved to the report from the Committee on Rules and Order of Business, Paul supporters began shouting "Point of Order," calling on the chair to recognize them for a motion. Boehner shouted over them, as other delegates tried to drown them out with chants of "U-S-A."

I thought the Ron Paul supporters in Iowa's delegation were planning to support their colleagues in Maine; Spiker gave that impression last week. Perhaps the Iowans couldn't get enough backup from other states.

On the plus side for Iowa Republicans, GOP nominee in the second Congressional district John Archer was put on the speaking schedule for Tuesday afternoon. (He was originally scheduled to speak on Monday, but tropical storm/hurricane Isaac's planned path derailed all of Monday's events.) You can watch a video of Archer's speech at the C-SPAN website. Transcript:

"Greetings! Greetings to the Iowa delegation. And greetings to all the great people in the state of Iowa!
Hope and change were elected four years ago, and where has that gotten us? We have more debt - almost 16 trillion in debt. This White House believes in a tax and spend philosophy.
We have more doubt - families don't know how much Obamacare will cost them, and businesses don't know what new regulations will burden them.
We have more despair - for 42 months, unemployment has been above 8 percent. We keep waiting for it to improve - and waiting and waiting and waiting. We don't have to wait any more. We can do better! And we'll do it by talking honestly about the issues.
As we have in Iowa this year, we will continue to talk about big ideas this week. We'll talk about a balanced budget - we can do better. We'll talk about tax relief for working families - we can do better. We'll talk about stopping the regulatory attack on farmers and small businesses - we can do better. We'll talk about protecting Medicare and Social Security for this generation of seniors and the next - we can do better. And we'll talk about getting government out from in-between patients and their doctors by repealing Obamacare - we can do better.
And we will do better in Iowa and across this great nation by electing Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as the next president and vice president of the United States this November. Thank you, and God bless Iowa and this great nation."

Archer spoke to the Quad Cities television station KWQC yesterday morning.

UPDATE: On August 29, U.S. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, gave a speech to his father's supporters. Again O.Kay Henderson was there (click through for a link to the audio):

"Now I had heard there were some troublemakers in Iowa and as I was driving the hour and a half out here, I figured, 'Boy, they stuck those guys way out in the wilderness,'" Rand Paul joked as he began speaking to the crowd.
But Paul quickly urged the crowd to tamp down the ranting and raving and consider the perspective of those who've criticized his father's supporters.
"Politics is messy. You can look at it two ways," Rand Paul said. "Some would say - and there is some point to this - Ron Paul got a very small percentage of the vote, but got a much larger percentage of delegates. It's because they worked hard and they got through the system, so you could argue they had a disproportionate influence here. Now, I'm not arguing we had too much influence, but you can look at it both ways." [...]
"Now some get unhappy at the proceedings and say, 'Oh, I'm not being treated fairly. I'm going to take my toys and go home,'" Rand Paul said. "I don't think that's the best way to do it. I think the best way is to participate within the Republican Party whether you're always getting what you want or not. If you're an adult, you don't always win every time. You've to realize that. Stay in the party. Make the party bigger and stronger."

August 30 update: I didn't watch Paul Ryan's acceptance speech last night, but I read that it was full of lies. Besides the usual misleading statements about Medicare and Medicaid, Ryan blamed Obama for a General Motors plant closure, even though GM announced plans to close that plant in June 2008. Also,

Ryan lied about the Simpson-Bowles commission, falsely accusing Obama of walking away from debt reduction, and ignoring the fact that Ryan himself fought to ensure the Simpson-Bowles commission never even released a report. Ryan lied about his plans for the safety net, saying he intends to "protect the weak" when he budget plan intends to gut public investments that benefit the poor.
Ryan lied about the debt, saying Obama "has added more debt than any other president before him," when the truth is, that was George W. Bush -- who added over $5 trillion to the debt thanks in large part to congressional votes cast by Paul Ryan.

Funny blog post by Jennifer Jacobs:

Although they were finished at Tuesday's session at 11 p.m., some of the Iowans didn't get back to their hotel an hour's journey away until as late as 2:30 a.m., they said. [...]
The problems started Tuesday morning. A shuttle was expected at noon sharp, but no bus appeared.
A bus coordinator stopped by Sunset Vistas hotel to make sure travel arrangements were going smoothly and learned the Iowa team was stranded.
"No bus was ever scheduled for us," said alternate delegate Chelsy Askren of Clayton County.
"By accident or design," added [State Representative Glen] Massie. "You know how we voted." [...]
Delegate Steve Scheffler said he didn't get back to Sunset Vistas until 2:30 a.m. Previous GOP conventions in Minnesota and New York "were nothing like this," he said. "This was just a disaster. Ridiculous."
Some of the delegates, including Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad and U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, have cars at their disposal and aren't relying on the shuttle buses.

Possible Iowa caucus reform discussion thread

desmoinesdem — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 02:05:00 GMT

The Iowa way of assigning delegates for presidential candidates may need to change for the 2016 election cycle, assuming the Republican National Convention approves a rule change sought by Mitt Romney's campaign.
Supporters of Ron Paul were able to dominate the at-large delegate selection process for the Republican National Convention and other party business at the GOP district and state conventions, even though Paul finished third in the straw polls conducted at Iowa precinct caucuses in January. A similar story unfolded in some other states that do not bind delegates to presidential candidates immediately following caucuses or primaries.

Romney's campaign wants to make sure that never happens again.

The Republican National Convention Committee voted 56-40 to make it impossible for supporters of one presidential candidate to override the will of voters at a state convention, as Ron Paul supporters did in Iowa and Nevada. [...]
The rule forces statewide presidential primaries or caucuses to determine the ultimate allocation of delegates, preventing takeovers like Paul executed in Iowa by eliminating unbound delegates in statewide contests. States would be allowed to decide whether to give all their delegates to the winner of the primary or caucus, or distribute them proportionally according to the results.
"Iowa will have to change the way they do it," said a GOP official.

Governor Terry Branstad, who remained neutral before the caucuses but later endorsed Romney for president, likes the proposed change.

"Generally speaking, the delegates have been proportioned fairly close to how (presidential candidates) did in the Caucuses," Branstad told Radio Iowa during a telephone interview early this afternoon.
Branstad supports the move to bind delegates to the results of the Caucus Night voting.
"I just think it does make a lot of sense and I'd be certainly supportive of that," Branstad said. "I think that way the people who go to the Caucuses can feel their representation is reflected in the (national convention) delegation."

But Iowa GOP Chair A.J. Spiker, who co-chaired Ron Paul's campaign in Iowa, told Radio Iowa, "I'm shocked that the Romney campaign would decide to divide Republicans just before the national convention." Yes, Mr. Spiker, we know that the fate of Ron Paul delegates is of great concern to you.

I have never been a big fan of the caucus system, in part because the delegates allocated to each candidate do not always reflect the preferences of caucus-goers. Any change that would make the delegate selection track more closely to the caucus-night results would be an improvement, in my opinion.

However, this change would not address the Iowa caucus problem of excluding highly engaged voters who are unable to attend in person. The Republican National Convention Committee considered but rejected a rule that would have required caucus states to allow active-duty military and disabled veterans to participate by absentee ballot. I support introducing absentee ballots to the caucus process, but only if they are available to anyone who can't turn out on caucus night (including shift workers, disabled people, and those who lack transportation to the caucus site).

John Deeth sees binding delegates as a major potential threat to Iowa's first-in-line status. However, the executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party downplayed that angle when speaking to the Des Moines Register.

Norm Sterzenbach, executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party, says he does not think the Republicans' proposed rules change is a good idea - but he doesn't expect it to cause problems with New Hampshire. He said binding delegates leaves no room for changing circumstances, such as a candidate who wins the caucuses but later is found to be unqualified for the presidency or who dies before the convention.
However, he noted that New Hampshire already tolerates Iowa Democrats' practice of allocating delegates based on the caucus-night vote. If Iowa is merely complying with an RNC rule, it shouldn't affect the relationship, he said.

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread.

P.S. - Speaking of the Republican National Convention, Monday's events in Tampa have been postponed due to threatening weather from Tropical Storm Isaac. However, some Ron Paul supporters believe the postponement is a "hoax" to prevent Paul from becoming the Republican presidential nominee. Talk about a flimsy grip on reality.

UPDATE: During the convention, Spiker touted one new RNC rule as the "biggest protection Iowa's first-in-the-nation status has ever had."

Under the new GOP rules, a state that schedules its presidential primary or caucus before the end of February would only be able to send 12 delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention.
"So (a state) like California that went into February would have 12 delegates instead of over 150, so it's a big penalty," Spiker says. "That's one of the biggest, positive things that come out of the convention that impacts the first-in-the-nation status of the Republican Party of Iowa."
States that have moved ahead on the presidential election calendar in the past, though, have escaped serious party penalties. By the time a national convention comes around, nervous presidential nominees do not wish to offend voters in states like Florida who are crucial for victory in November. GOP Convention delegates ratified the new get-tough-on-leapfroggers rule on Tuesday. Spiker says a bid to give the party's next presumed presidential nominee the ability to dictate who could be a delegate at the 2016 convention has been thwarted.
"I believe that speaks volumes of a lot of us put in to make sure that it was the people rather than the politicians picking the delegates," Spiker says. "It was a tremendous success of a broad coalition: Tea Party people, Evangelicals, moderates, Ron Paul people - it was just a broad coalition to make sure that the grassroots continued to be the leader of that process."

Department of strange fundraising appeals

desmoinesdem — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:20:00 GMT

I've seen a lot of flimsy hooks for political fundraising, but nothing like the latest call for donations to the Republican Party of Iowa.
Candidates, elected officials, and political parties will seize on almost any pretext to raise money. I lost count of how many e-mail blasts I've gotten this week from Democratic groups and campaigns trying to cash in on Representative Todd Akin's comments about rape and pregnancy.

By comparison, the Iowa GOP's Facebook post from last night was creative:

Rumor from the RNC Meetings in Tampa is that the RNC may only seat half of the delegates elected for Ron Paul from Maine. The Republican Party of Iowa strongly values an open election process and hardworking grassroots activists. If this turns out to be true and 1/2 of the Ron Paul delegates from Maine are not seated, then the Iowa GOP will be donating one of its RNC guest passes to all Ron Paul Delegates kept out. If you'd like to help the Iowa GOP defend liberty with a donation, please do so here.
https://www.iowagop.org/single...

Come again?

You want loyal Republicans to "defend liberty" by supporting the Iowa GOP's efforts to get another state's Ron Paul delegates into the Tampa convention hall?

I can't imagine the Iowa Democratic Party asking me for money to make sure delegates elected halfway across the country were able to wave the flag for Hillary Clinton at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Speaking of which, I received a robocall from Senator Tom Harkin last night, encouraging me to fill out the absentee ballot request form the Iowa Democratic Party sent me a few days ago. Banking early votes is a smart use of limited resources during a general election campaign. Worrying about another state's delegates for a losing presidential candidate is ... (tries to think of a polite word for the opposite of smart) ...

The frustration of Republican blogger Craig Robinson (already annoyed by the Iowa GOP's weak fundraising) was palpable.

It would be nice if the Republican Party of Iowa was as passionate in helping our congressional candidates achieve victory this fall as they are about holding the hands of Ron Paul delegates from Maine. It would seem more appropriate for the Republican Party of Iowa to solicit donations to help win control of the Iowa State Senate than to ask for donations to help Ron Paul delegates from some other state get into the convention.

He wasn't the only Republican to be concerned. State Representative Dawn Pettengill posted this comment on the Facebook thread:

The link takes you to the donation page for Iowa candidates. I'm struggling to find the connection between that link and the post. Someone please fill me in with who posted this and if the people at RPI want to help out Maine, start a different group than our state RPI page and find a different funding mechanism than the one being used to fund our state candidates!

Since A.J. Spiker was selected to replace Matt Strawn as Iowa GOP chairman, Ron Paul supporters have flexed their muscles on several occasions while conducting state party business. Getting riled up about a possible affront to Ron Paul delegates in Maine is just silly.

The campaign for the next two-year term as Iowa GOP leader should be entertaining. Spiker's term ends in January 2013--assuming he makes it that long.

UPDATE: Pettengill posted a couple more comments on that thread:

Dawn Pettengill Let me be clear-ER! I do not care about Maine. I do not care if the people who work at RPI want to help Maine. They can do it on a different page, with a different funding mechanism and on their own time. The Iowa website listed in this link is for Iowa candidates, to pay our staff and hold events for all candidates related to IOWA. We have a lot of people who are a little more than armchair quarterbacks working their butts off right now to defeat Democrats. They are giving up ALL of their personal time to stand for us. Let's be a little respectful to that. Keep the House. Take the Senate. Get our Congressmen elected. That is bottom up and that's the way we win.
5 hours ago · Like · 2
Dawn Pettengill ‎75 days. We don't have time for this. Keep your eye on the prize, because another term of a House majority and us working our tails off, only to have it die the second it hits the Senate, is NOT fun!
5 hours ago · Like · 1

Checking out the Iowa GOP's website, I noticed that last week they were offering supporters "a $10 gift card to Chick-fil-a as our special gift to you" in exchange for becoming a regular monthly donor of at least $10 to their "Patriot Club." I wonder how many takers they got for that one.

Conservatives organizing "No on Wiggins" Iowa judicial retention campaign

desmoinesdem — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:52:50 GMT

Bob Vander Plaats confirmed over the weekend that he will lead the campaign against retaining Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins, who concurred in the 2009 Varnum v Brien decision on civil marriage rights. Earlier this month, Republican Party of Iowa Chair A.J. Spiker called on Iowans to vote against Wiggins as well.
Background: under the judicial selection system Iowans approved in 1962, state judges are subject to periodic retention votes. Judges serving on the district courts, the Iowa Court of Appeals, or the Iowa Supreme Court need a simple majority of "yes" votes to remain in office. The seven Iowa Supreme Court justices are on the statewide ballot for the first general election following their appointment by the governor, and every eight years thereafter.

Three of the seven justices who were part of the unanimous Varnum v Brien ruling, including its author Mark Cady, were retained in November 2008. They will not face another retention vote until 2016.

In November 2010, a majority of Iowans voted against retaining Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices Michael Streit and David Baker. Neither Republican Party leaders nor gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad (who had appointed Ternus and Cady) called for voting against the justices. Instead, Vander Plaats took the lead role in the campaign against retention shortly after losing the Iowa GOP's primary for governor. Vander Plaats' Iowans for Freedom coalition ran extensive statewide television advertising urging Iowans to vote no on so-called activist judges. Out-of-state socially conservative groups like the National Organization for Marriage and the American Family Association spent nearly a million dollars supporting that campaign. Newt Gingrich helped raise roughly $200,000 for the anti-retention campaign as well.

A coalition supporting Iowa's merit selection system for judges got off the ground late in 2010, as did a campaign explicitly advocating for yes votes on Ternus, Streit, and Baker. Neither alliance came close to matching the campaign spending by the anti-retention forces. Generally poor turnout for Iowa Democrats and high turnout rates among Republicans also affected the election results. Never before had Iowans voted against retaining Iowa Supreme Court justices.

Wiggins, appointed by Governor Tom Vilsack in 2003, will be one of four Iowa Supreme Court justices on the ballot this November. Iowans will also be asked to vote on retaining the three justices Branstad appointed to replace Ternus, Streit, and Baker: Edward Mansfield, Thomas Waterman, and Bruce Zager.

Speaking at a "Family Leadership Summit" in Waukee on August 11, Vander Plaats made clear that Iowans for Freedom will target only Wiggins.

"When you raise your hand and you swear an oath to the constitution and then you go outside of the constitution, outside of your separation of powers, to legislate from the bench, to execute from the bench, to amend the constitution from the bench - we, the people must hold a person like that in check," Vander Plaats said. "And that's why we're going to say, 'Vote no on Judge Wiggins.'"

Vander Plaats has struggled to stay relevant in statewide politics (no one cares whether the governor tacitly approves of a conference on bullying). The "No on Wiggins" campaign will generate a lot of publicity--and money.

Speaking from the stage in the church's auditorium, Vander Plaats noted that one person in the audience had already pledged $1,000 to the retention campaign effort, and asked others to do the same.
He was followed by National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown, who told the crowd his organization - which lobbies nationally against same-sex marriage - would match up to $100,000 in contributions for anti-Wiggins effort.

The Republican Party of Iowa's fundraising has fallen through the floor since A.J. Spiker replaced previous chairman Matt Strawn. I believe financial need prompted Spiker's recent public call for a no vote on Wiggins. From Spiker's e-mail blast of August 1:

This morning I issued a formal press release below on the upcoming retention vote of Iowa Supreme Court Justice David Wiggins. Along with a handful of activist judges, Justice Wiggins chose to disregard legal precedent when he voted to re-define the definition of marriage within the state of Iowa.
On behalf of the Republican Party of Iowa I stated the Iowa GOP's position that Justice Wiggins must be removed from his post and not retained through this coming election.
As a Republican I am a strong believer in the rule of law and the need for Iowans to have the final say on how marriage is defined. It should be up to us as voters to decide how this sacred institution is defined and not a small group of judges. The people of Iowa are tired of increasingly powerful bureaucrats arrogantly and deceitfully instituting law when they have no justification or ability to do so.
I call on all Republicans in Iowa to vote, "No" on the retention of Justice David Wiggins in this coming November election. We have an obligation to protect the rule of law and the values we believe in and have the opportunity to do so by removing those with blatant disregard for the law.
Help advance the principles of the Iowa GOP by donating $20, $50, or $100 today
Just as we did in 2010, Iowa Republicans have the power to remove activist judges who abuse their authority and allow their pride to influence their responsibility to uphold the Constitution.
Please join me in voting, "No" on the retention of Justice Wiggins and spread the word to friends and family about the need to remove this arrogant and misguided judge. This will be the only opportunity to hold these unelected activist judges accountable.
Together we can ensure Iowa is a state that respects our Constitution and will not stand for political bureaucrats who believe they are above the law.

Radio Iowa's O.Kay Henderson posted the full text of Spiker's press release and several responses. Wiggins released this written statement:

Our system is built on checks and balances between independent branches of government. Two of the branches are designed to be political. It is unfortunate that Mr. Spiker apparently thinks that all three branches should be political.
I have always viewed the role of the judiciary as limited and I am proud of my work in writing opinions and helping resolve the issues that are brought before the court.

Ternus, Streit, and Baker chose not to campaign for their own retention in 2010. The New York Times editorial board recently urged Wiggins not to "make the same high-minded mistake."

Whether or not Wiggins campaigns to keep his job, he will have more support than his colleagues had in 2010. The LGBT advocacy group One Iowa has been raising money for a pro-retention campaign, and the Iowa State Bar Association will run ads this fall urging Iowans to retain all the judges on the ballot, association president Cynthia Moser told journalists last week.

Moser calls Wiggins and the other 74 judges who're on the November ballot "well-qualified" for that role.
"We don't think that judges should be subject to those kinds of political pressures," Moser says.
The Iowa State Bar Association chose an earlier release date for its survey charting the opinions Iowa lawyers have of judges and justices who're up for retention. The group also has a booth at the Iowa State Fair to tout the state's judicial system.
"We want Iowans to know that the judges standing for retention on November 6 are high-quality individuals and to a person they deserve to be retained on the bench," Moser says.

The Iowa State Bar Association posted results from its latest member survey here. A majority of respondents supported retaining all of the judges on the ballot, but Wiggins received significantly lower support than did the new Supreme Court justices Mansfield, Waterman, and Zager. Moser suggested that the Varnum v Brien marriage ruling was a factor in Wiggins' rating of only 63 percent on that survey. I suspect that how Wiggins ran the State Judicial Nominating Commission in December 2010 and January 2011 contributed to the result. Only one woman was on the short list of nine judicial nominees that commission sent to Governor Branstad, even though many highly qualified women applied for the Supreme Court positions.

Branstad is walking a fine line on this year's retention vote. He made clear that Spiker did not consult him before committing the Iowa GOP to all-out war against Wiggins. The governor didn't endorse the no vote on Wiggins, but nor did he disavow the effort to oust him: "

"My position has always been, as it was in the 2010 election, that this retention of judges is a decision to be made by the voters and that I should not try to influence people's decision," Branstad says, "that they ought look at each individual justice, based on their record, and determine whether or not they as an individual voter think they should be retained."

In April 2011, Branstad publicly criticized the way Wiggins treated some applicants for the Supreme Court vacancies.

Cedar Rapids Gazette columnist Todd Dorman wants "responsible" conservative leaders to stand up to the anti-retention forces.

Again, the same-sex marriage issue in Iowa, from a judicial standpoint, is settled. But what's not settled is whether we're going to stand by while folks like Spiker and his allies dishonestly bully our courts when they issue rulings based on law, arguments and evidence, but fail to consider the Republican Party's platform or the spiteful, selective biblical stylings of the righteous right. [...]
"My position has always been, as it was in the 2010 election, that this retention of judges is a decision to be made by the voters and that I should not try to influence people's decision," Gov. Terry Branstad said last week, refusing to give his own opinion.
"I can tell you I am going to take the same posture I did on the effort to remove the three last time. That is a state issue, and I am going to concentrate on federal issues," said U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley when asked about the retention issue recently.
I'm not saying these guys have to endorse same-sex marriage. But Branstad has a law degree and appointed scores of judges over the years using this nomination/retention process. Grassley is ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and helped Regis grad J. Paul Oetken become the first openly gay American to be confirmed as a federal judge. I believe, deep down, they both recognize Spiker's call as reckless folly. They just can't seem to summon the fortitude to get past the politics.

I'm not convinced that deep down, Branstad and Grassley are the least bit concerned about the anti-retention campaign. For decades, Republican elected officials have enjoyed the collateral benefits from social conservatives' outrage over the hot topic of the day. This year's GOTV against Wiggins is just the latest installment.

A few retired Iowa Republican elected officials have condemned the No on Wiggins campaign, namely former State Senator Jeff Angelo and former Lieutenant Governor Joy Corning. I'll be shocked if even one current GOP office-holder joins their ranks.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

Iowa reaction to Supreme Court upholding health care reform law

desmoinesdem — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:30:31 GMT

The U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the constitutionality of the 2010 Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, better known as health care reform. I am shocked not only by the decision, but by the 5-4 breakdown with Chief Justice John Roberts (not Justice Anthony Kennedy) being the swing vote in favor of upholding the law. Most commentators and the betting site Intrade thought the court would strike down at least the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, if not the whole law. To her credit, Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times consistently predicted that Roberts would vote to uphold the law.

Any comments related to health care reform are welcome in this thread. I will update this post frequently during the day as Iowa elected officials, candidates, and activist groups weigh in on the decision.
Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. He rejected the Obama administration's argument that the Commerce clause gives the federal government the right to force individuals to purchase health insurance. However, he found that the individual mandate (enforced by a financial penalty) was consistent with the federal government's taxing power.

The lawsuit brought by many states also had challenged the Medicaid expansion provision in the 2010 law, saying it denied states' rights. Governor Terry Branstad signed Iowa onto this lawsuit in January 2011, against the advice of Attorney General Tom miller. I haven't seen yet whether any of the justices accepted the argument against the Medicaid expansion, which seemed absurd on its face. For decades, the federal government has attached strings to federal funding to the states. For instance, many states raised the legal drinking age to 21 in order to avoid losing federal highway funds.

Later today Ross Daniels and Amy Ward are scheduled to appear at a press conference discussing today's ruling. They have personally benefited from the 2010 law's ban on lifetime limits for private health insurance coverage.

UPDATE: This pdf file contains the court rulings in the health care cases: the majority ruling, Justice Ginsburg concurring in part, and the dissent signed by Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy.

CNN just reported on the portion of the ruling dealing with the Medicaid expansion. Apparently the court held that the federal government cannot withdraw existing Medicaid funding from states that decline to implement the Medicaid expansion. However, the federal government can make additional Medicaid funding contingent on states accepting the broader eligibility rules for Medicaid. Two justices (Sotomayor and Ginsburg) disagreed with Roberts on that point, finding the Medicaid expansion fully constitutional. Ginsburg's decision discusses these points on pages 38 through 61.

Lyle Denniston wrote on the SCOTUS blog's liveblog this morning,

The rejection of the Commerce Clause and [Necessary] and Proper Clause should be understood as a major blow to Congress's authority to pass social welfare laws. Using the tax code -- especially in the current political environment -- to promote social welfare is going to be a very chancy proposition.

SECOND UPDATE: Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) was the first member of Iowa's Congressional delegation to get his statement out:

"The Supreme Court got it right today. This decision is good news for the middle class and affordable healthcare. It makes me think of thousands of Iowans like my nephew, Tucker. Tucker survived a fight with liver cancer at age 2 because his family had health insurance. But his parents lived in constant fear of losing their jobs because Tucker would be denied new insurance due to his pre-existing condition. The healthcare reform law ended those fears -- and this decision means many other critical reforms will stay in place.
"From allowing 18,000 Iowans to stay on their parents' insurance up to age 26, to requiring insurance companies cover screenings for diseases like breast cancer, to saving Iowa seniors hundreds of dollars per year on their Medicare prescription drugs, the law's positive impact on Iowa is just beginning to be felt.
"It's not a perfect law. That's why I'll be working to bring Republicans and Democrats together to improve it and make it better."

Governor Terry Branstad and Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds released these statements "on the United States Supreme Court ruling of Obamacare."

Gov. Branstad:
"Today, the Supreme Court handed down a disastrous decision to uphold President Obama's destructive health care law, which means a future of higher costs, higher taxes, and increasing debt for Iowans. The current health care system is nothing but a federal takeover and continues to exceed its budgeted amount every day. But, as Governor Romney has said many times, no matter what may happen in Court, the American people must remain vigilant in their fight to repeal the law. Our goal is for Iowa to become the healthiest state in the country and to do so Iowans will need to take ownership of their own health to reduce health care costs and lead healthier lives."
Lt. Gov. Reynolds:
"America needs real health care reform and we need Governor Romney in Washington. Gov. Romney will enact real reforms to ensure that the future of Iowa and America as a whole can replace Obamacare with solutions that put Iowans in control of their own health care and preserve the economic future of Iowa's next generation."

THIRD UPDATE: The four dissenting justices basically accepted all of the arguments against the law's constitutionality. The mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, the rest of the law can't stand without the mandate because it can't be severed from the mandate, and the Medicaid expansion is an affront to states' rights. Excerpt:

The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available.
The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court's new design will struggle to retain. And it leaves the public and the States to expend vast sums of money on requirements that may or may not survive the necessary congressional revision.
The Court's disposition, invented and atextual as it is, does not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties. It creates them. The holding that the Individual Mandate is a tax raises a difficult constitutional question (what is a direct tax?) that the Court resolves with inadequate deliberation. And the judgment on the Medicaid Expansion issue ushers in new federalism concerns and places an unaccustomed strain upon the Union. Those States that decline the Medicaid Expansion must subsidize, by the federal tax dollars taken from their citizens, vast grants to the States that accept the Medicaid Expansion. If that destabilizing political dynamic, so antagonistic to a harmonious Union, is to be introduced at all, it should be by Congress, not by the Judiciary.
The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court's ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.

FOURTH UPDATE: Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan supported upholding the constitutionality of the mandate, period. Only Roberts drew the distinction that the mandate is constitutional under the taxing power, not under the power to regulate inter-state Commerce.

FIFTH UPDATE: Statement from Iowa Senate Health and Human Services Committee Chair Jack Hatch, a Democrat and former leader of the national Working Group of State Legislators for Health Care Reform.

"The U.S. Supreme Court's decision today is a major victory for all Iowans, both those with health insurance and those without. Now, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the health care of every Iowan will improve and become more secure while costs for consumers and businesses are reduced.
"Iowa's nonpartisan, forward-looking approach to health care made us the top state in the nation with regard to children's health care. We should now take full advantage of the new opportunities presented by this decision to make Iowa the best state in the nation when it comes to health care for every Iowan.
"I'm confident that most elected officials in our state are ready to work closely with consumers, health care providers, insurers, business leaders and others to do just that."
--end--
At 2:00 pm on Thursday, June 28, in Room 116 at the Iowa State Capitol, Senator Jack Hatch of Des Moines and Dr. Steve Eckstat, Vice President of Primary Care Services at Mercy Hospital and the President of Free Clinics of Iowa, will provide more details on how the decision impacts the health care of Iowa families.

SIXTH UPDATE: Republican State Senator Kent Sorenson had this to say on twitter:

Our supreme court chose to walk and urinate on our constitutional freedoms today. It is time to control-alt-delete the judicial system.

In the past, Sorenson has called for impeaching Iowa Supreme Court justices who concurred in the Varnum v Brien decision on marriage. He also sought to bring back Iowa Supreme Court elections.

Within an hour of the Supreme Court's announcement today, John Roberts' wikipedia page had been updated to label him a "coward."

SEVENTH UPDATE: At the Volokh Conspiracy blog, David Bernstein points to hints that Scalia's dissent "was originally written as a majority opinion (in particular, he consistently refers to Justice Ginsburg's opinion as "The Dissent")." If that's the case, then Roberts most likely flipped his vote. LATER UPDATE: Brad DeLong fleshes out this theory with excerpts from Scalia's opinion.

Nine times Scalia refers to Ginsburg's opinion on the mandate not as a concurrence--agreeing with the result, but for different reasons--but as a "dissent". [...] Is this deliberate--that Scalia wants us to know that his opinion was originally written to be the opinion of the Court? Or is this simply sloppy draftsmanship--chronic laziness at revision?
And what made Roberts peel off?

Mitt Romney spoke on live television shortly before 11 am and vowed to seek repeal of Obamacare. He emphasized that the court ruled Obamacare is constitutional, but didn't imply that it is good law. He promised that he would work to replace Obamacare with something that empowers consumers and helps lower the cost of health care and health insurance. He expressed support for banning insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing medical conditions. "If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we're going to have to replace President Obama."

EIGHTH UPDATE: Senator Tom Harkin's office released this statement.

WASHINGTON-Today, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act:
"Today's decision by the Supreme Court is a rigorous, resounding confirmation of the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. It is great news for America's families and businesses, and for our economy. This decision keeps consumers, rather than insurance companies, in the driver's seat, and protects the more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction included in the ACA. Today's decision allows us to continue our work replacing the current sick care system with a genuine health care system - one focused on wellness, prevention, and public health, keeping people out of the hospital in the first place.
"I am heartened to see that the hundreds of millions of corporate dollars poured into the effort to kill the Affordable Care Act did not win. This law is a critical step in the right direction;I have likened it to a starter home, suitable for improvement. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sensible changes as we continue to implement the law. I invite them to bring their tool kits, rather than their sledgehammers, so we can work together to improve the law.
"The choice is to go forward, or be dragged backward. I believe the great majority of Americans want to go forward - and today the Supreme Court made clear what we have long known: that the opposition is standing on the wrong side of history. Now let's get back to work building a health care system that works not only for the healthy and wealthy, but for all Americans."
Under the Affordable Care Act:
More than 3.1 million young adults who would have gone uninsured are now covered by their parents' health care plans
The Patients' Bill of Rights puts Americans back in charge of their health care decisions, protects those with pre-existing conditions, eliminates lifetime coverage limits, ends arbitrary policy cancellations by insurers, and improves accountability and transparency
45.1 million women have access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, prenatal care, and well-child visits with no out-of-pocket costs
Over 5.1 million people on Medicare saved over $3.2 billion on prescription drugs thanks to discounts on both name brand and generic drugs donut hole over the past two years
86 million Americans have already received one or more preventive services, like cancer screenings and check-ups, at no cost
360,000 small businesses have used the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit to help insure 2 million workers
For a list of Iowa benefits under the new law, please click here: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/...
###

Senator Chuck Grassley spoke to reporters by conference call.

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley says the ruling "throws the issue into the arms of the American people" in this fall's presidential election.
"The legislation, as you know, was sold to congress and to the people of this country under the false pretense because the president said that he wasn't going to raise taxes and that this bill didn't raise taxes," Grassley said this morning.
The Supreme Court has ruled the law's "mandate" that Americans buy health insurance is constitutional under the power congress has to levy taxes. Grassley said that means Barack Obama has "fought for and signed one of the biggest taxes ever" - a motivating factor for Republican and Republican-leaning voters in the fall election. [...]
"That's going to mean that taxes are going to be highlighted to a greater extent during the presidential election," Grassley said.
Today's decision ensures the power of the government is "just as strong as ever," according to Grassley.
"If the power to tax can make you buy insurance, can they make you buy Chevrolets because the government owns 27 percent of General Motors and if you don't buy a Chevrolet you're going to pay a tax?" Grassley asked rhetorically during a telephone conference call with reporters.

NINTH UPDATE: President Barack Obama just addressed the country on live television. He said he didn't pass health care reform because it was "good politics." Thought it was good for the country. He said the country can't afford to re-fight battles of two years ago, and it's time to move forward, to implement and, where necessary, improve on this law. He said people will be able to keep their health insurance but will also be protected from the whims of insurance companies.

Meanwhile, Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) released this statement:

"Today's decision will bring stability and certainty to Iowans as they make critical health care choices for themselves and their families. It maintains protections for those who have pre-existing conditions, ensures no Iowan will be denied coverage, and that young Iowans can stay on their parents' health care plans until they are 26. Additionally, this ruling affirms that preventative care will be provided without a co-payment, and that those who lose their jobs will not lose their coverage. It also prevents women from being charged higher premiums simply because they are female, and prohibits pregnancy from being treated as a pre-existing condition. Further, the Medicare prescription drug donut hole will be completely closed by 2020, through reforms that are already saving our seniors $650 each this year.
"As we move forward, the bill is not perfect and I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the Affordable Care Act is enacted in a way that will reduce health care costs and help bring stability to Iowans during these difficult economic times."

Representative Steve King (R, IA-05) will speak to reporters by conference call later today. His office sent out this statement:

King: The Fate of ObamaCare is Not Yet Set
Washington, DC- Congressman Steve King released the following statement today in response to the Supreme Court declaring the individual mandate to be Constitutional under Congress's taxing power.
"Leading up to today, the lower courts were split on a handful of issues," said King. "One issue they were nearly unanimous on was that the individual mandate was not a tax therefore could not be upheld under Congress's power to tax. Today the Supreme Court disagrees with the vast majority of lower court decisions and contradicts President Obama himself, who vehemently denied that the individual mandate was a tax.
The fate of ObamaCare is not yet set. The House has voted to pass my language to repeal 100% of ObamaCare. Every Republican Senator has voted to do the same. On the other hand, President Obama and Democrats in Congress remain as committed as ever to forcing the unconstitutional law that bears the President's name upon an unwilling and disapproving public. The choice could not be clearer. The American people should be reminded that there is no force more powerful than their voice. After the passage of ObamaCare, the American people made their disapproval known in a powerful way. Today's decision should renew that call and spirit.
The Constitution lays out a government of limited, enumerated powers, and the size and scope of our current government, and specifically ObamaCare, are well beyond what our Founding Fathers ever intended. The American people will decide the fate of ObamaCare."

Iowa House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Democrat, released this statement:

"Today's ruling is a win for the middle class and will reduce the overall cost of health care in the long term. It means insurance companies can't deny health care to Iowans with pre-existing conditions, charge women more to get health care, or impose lifetime limits on care for Iowans. It means over 18,000 young Iowans can stay on their parents health care plan until 26. It means over 42,000 seniors in Iowa will save an average of $615 every year on their prescription drugs. It also means small businesses can get help to offer health care for their employees."

The SCOTUS blog has posted more pieces on the ruling. Amy Howe summarizes the ruling in plain English. Richard Epstein finds Roberts' analysis on taxation and regulation "intellectually shabby." Adam Winkler argues that "The Roberts Court is Born":

With this deft ruling, Roberts avoided what was certain to be a cascade of criticism of the high court. No Supreme Court has struck down a president's signature piece of legislation in over 75 years. Had Obamacare been voided, it would have inevitably led to charges of aggressive judicial activism. Roberts peered over the abyss and decided he didn't want to go there.
Roberts' decision was consistent with his confirmation hearings pledge to respect the co-equal branches of government, push for consensus, and reach narrow rulings designed to build broad coalitions on the Court. He promised to respect precedent. His jurisprudence, he said, would be marked by "modesty and humility" and protection of the precious institutional legitimacy of the Court.
Today, the institutional legitimacy of the Court was buttressed. President Obama wasn't the only winner at the Supreme Court today. So was the Supreme Court itself.

TENTH UPDATE: Representative Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03) released this statement.

"The highest court in the land spoke today and found the Affordable Care Act constitutional. Millions of Americans, including children, seniors, and health care providers, have won today. No one will ever be denied coverage for having a pre-existing condition. If you're a young adult, you can be covered under your parent's plan until your 26 years old. Seniors will continue seeing the gap in their prescription drug coverage close and will be able to take advantage of preventative care, like cancer screenings, without having a co-pay or deductible.
"This decision reaffirms a major victory for the middle class and I will be working to make sure the health care law continues to serve Americans' health care needs and provides families with the necessary security and stability for the future. Now that this law has been reaffirmed, it is time for opponents to stop spreading misinformation in their attempts to confuse the American people on this law. Enrolling approximately 30 million additional Americans in health insurance is an achievement we can be proud of as we act to fulfill our responsibility to those in need. It's time for ALL to work together to make sure the law is enacted fairly and properly. "

Senator Chuck Grassley's office released a video statement. Click here to listen. The text is here:

I respect the Supreme Court but strongly disagree with this decision.
The court has upheld the law saying that the President's health care law is a tax on every American - regardless of income - unless that American takes an action the government demands.
The only way the law is constitutional is by doing what the President denied, that the penalty was a tax. The legislation was sold in Congress and to the country under false pretenses.
With this decision, the court said that while Congress' ability to regulate is limited, its ability to tax is unlimited.
In addition, the court saying the Medicaid enforcement mechanism was unconstitutional means that President Obama cannot deliver on his promise to poor people needing Medicaid. Here, there was no way out for the unconstitutional approach of the President.
Now, it's up to the American people. The majority of Americans don't like this law, and health care will be a major issue in the presidential election, including its impact on the economy and jobs, which should have been the first priority all along.
The goal has got to be on growing the economy and creating jobs, not making government bigger, but including health care solutions that use free-market principles, don't get between patients and their doctors, and succeed in driving down health care costs.

Republican Congressional candidate Ben Lange, who is running against Braley in IA-01, released this statement:

Lange on Obamacare Ruling: Vote Out Incumbent Politicians
INDEPENDENCE, IA -- Iowa congressional candidate Ben Lange (IA-01) issued the following statement today in response to the Supreme Court's ruling on Obamacare:
"The issue before the Supreme Court today was not about the wisdom of Obamacare, it was about the legal foundations of our constitutional Republic and the role of federal politicians in the lives of states and individuals.
Our founders constructed the Constitution on the pillars of federalism, separation of powers, and enumerated powers in order to divide and limit the power of the federal government. Why? Because history has shown that well-meaning politicians armed with concentrated power in pursuit of desirable ends tend to trample the rights of citizens.
Obamacare is the quintessential example. In pursuing more affordable and accessible health care, no doubt a desirable end, Congressman Bruce Braley and other federal politicians sought to establish the legal principle that the federal government can force Iowans to purchase a good or service against our will.
By upholding this legal principle today, the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no longer any meaningful limits on what federal politicians can do to the American people under the auspices of the taxing power. Individual and states' rights have been permanently compromised in our constitutional system.
While I disagree with the legal conclusion of the Supreme Court, I respect their judgment.
Chief Justice Roberts is correct in stating: "Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
Iowans now have only one option for taking back control of their most intimate health care decisions from divisive federal politicians and bureaucrats: Iowans must vote out politicians like Congressman Bruce Braley in November.

Loebsack's Republican challenger in IA-02, John Archer, highlighted the Supreme Court ruling in this fundraising e-mail blast.

We Need You
Now, more than ever, we need to send our values to D.C.
Today, the Supreme Court passed down its decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care bill more commonly known as ObamaCare. The Supreme Court has created a precedent giving the Federal Government the right to mandate your healthcare, the right to wedge themselves between your doctor and you, and the Supreme Court can be bullied into making excuses for the liberal political machine.
President Barack Obama and his rubber stamp in Congress, Dave Loebsack, have made a fatal mistake. They have given all Americans another excuse to get involved. If ever you have considered volunteering, donating or making your voice heard then now is the time. Each day the Democrats in Washington make this election more and more important. The fate of this country rests solely on the shoulders of the American people and to be prosperous we must act now. I need your help to defeat Dave Loebsack, bring your voice to Washington and steer this country off the path of socialism and certain economic doom.
President Obama claimed over and over again that this bill was not a tax and yet calling it a tax is what saved the bill from being struck down. As always, Democrats continue to raise taxes and implement burdensome regulations that stifle job growth as well as create an environment that increases dependency on the federal government. This vicious cycle must stop and it must stop now. I need your time and your donations to fix what is broken, rebuild and then prosper. Please make a generous donation of $25, $50, $100 or $200 to our campaign.
I have taken up this cause because I know what America needs. We need conservative, common sense ideals in Washington and that is exactly what I bring to the table. This week, I was honored to receive the endorsement of former Senator Rick Santorum. In his statement, Rick Senatorum so graciously said, "His business background working through the regulatory and legal hurdles facing manufacturing makes him uniquely qualified to come to Washington and stop the attacks on our economy." Further, Santorum said, "We look forward to working to help elect John Archer as the next congressman for southeast Iowa."
I ask you now to please support our campaign financially so that we can bring the fight to Dave Loebsack and send a message that the people of Iowa are no longer going to stand by and allow America to have a Greece-like demise. That is why we need you to make a contribution to the campaign now, before our very important June 30th FEC reporting deadline.
Thank you in advance,
John Archer
Candidate for Congress

Republican Party of Iowa Chair A.J. Spiker also sent out a fundraising e-mail today in response to the Supreme Court ruling. Excerpt:

Friend,
Right now Barack Obama is grinning ear to ear.
But he has no idea the sleeping giant he's awakened.
This morning the Supreme Court upheld the main parts of "Obamacare" and dealt a blow to freedom and liberty throughout the nation.
And while Obama and his liberal establishment minions are celebrating, Republicans have already begun to make sure this law never sees the light of day.
Here in Iowa we plan on doubling our efforts to keep our majority in the State House, take back the State Senate and ensure Obama becomes a one term President.
We can do it, but we need your help.
As Mitt Romney comes to Iowa and builds his campaign structure it is vital we give him the ground support he needs.
This election will be a close one and It is imperative we turn Iowa red this Fall and deliver our electoral votes to Governor Romney.
This morning I have spoken at length with state and national Republican leaders on how to reverse Obama's dangerous liberal agenda.
We all agree, the best way to effectively fight back is to elect Republicans at all levels of government and ensure we have the votes in place to defeat Obamacare once and for all.

The Des Moines-based Child and Family Policy Center released this comment:

Affordable Care Act will improve health care for Iowa children and families
Child and Family Policy Center executive director Charles Bruner issued the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding the Affordable Care Act:
"Today is a good day for Iowa families. When fully implemented, the ACA will assure health coverage for tens of millions of the uninsured, make insurance more affordable for those who already have it and boost consumer protections for Americans of all ages.
"But Iowa still has work to do to achieve these reform goals, which are ones Iowans truly want. Key will be affirming the expansion of Medicaid and assuring the state creates an exchange that meets the needs of health-care consumers."
The Child and Family Policy Center is a Des Moines-based research and advocacy organization dedicated to promoting outcome-based policies that improve child well-being.

I asked Amy Ward for a comment on the Supreme Court ruling, because the White House and other supporters of the Affordable Care Act have told her story. She sent me this reply:

I'm thrilled by the Supreme Court's ruling today. Right at this very moment, in intensive care units across the country, other families wait and pray for the health and well-being of loved ones facing serious health crises. I hope these loved ones will have the same chance to heal as I did - without having to worry about lifetime maximums, pre-existing conditions clauses, and the fear of health insurance coverage terminated in the midst of major illnesses.

I am disappointed that Americans in some states won't benefit from the Medicaid expansion. Millions of the people who were supposed to be covered under the law would have been added to Medicaid rolls. Roberts' ruling opened the door for states to refuse to expand eligibility. I expect this to become a major battle in Iowa, because Governor Branstad has said he doesn't think the Medicaid expansion is affordable. Democrats in the Iowa House and Senate will want to implement the Medicaid expansion.

ELEVENTH UPDATE and CORRECTION: According to this statement released by Iowa Senate Health and Human Services Committee Chair Jack Hatch, the Medicaid provision is not as crucial for Iowa, because we already cover people at income levels beyond the requirements of the 2010 federal law.

Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Affirming the Affordable Care Act
Sen. Jack Hatch (D-Des Moines)
I have been working with Iowa legislators and three different Governors on health care reform for more years than I care to remember, and this is the most significant and happiest day of that effort.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision today on the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare (because, Obama does care) is a major victory for all Americans - those with health insurance and those without. We are now on a path to expand access, lower costs for businesses, large and small, individual consumers and taxpayers, and increase preventative care for all Iowans.
This decision is a historic milestone in the creation of an American social safety net. It is not hyperbole to suggest it is one of the most important Court decisions of the past 50 years.
The Court has affirmed President Obama's bold approach to health care reform.
I'm proud of the members of the Supreme Court who put differences aside and did the right thing for our country. What they preserved is an effective, reasonable health care law that does some important things for Iowans including:
· Helping thousands of Iowans with pre-existing conditions get coverage after being denied it for years;
· 611,000 Iowans already have received common-sense preventative health services - including well-child visits, cancer screenings and immunizations - without co-pays;
· 18,012 young adults, up to the age of 26, will be allowed to stay on their parents' health insurance policy;
· 42,015 Iowa seniors saved an average of $1,384 on prescription durgs on Medicare;
· Thousands of Iowans no longer have lifetime dollar caps in health insurance policies;
And there is much more.
But we know this decision is far from the last word in the health care debate.
Suddenly, there are political concerns that somehow Obamacare will be the largest tax increase in history. The reality is the tax only kicks in for those who choose not to have health insurance, and our goal is to have no Iowan ever have to pay that tax.
The Medicaid provisions of the decision have less impact on Iowa because of a forward thinking program called IowaCare which allows childless adults to get health care up to 200 percent of the poverty level. We are ahead of the federal government. And I don't believe we are going to move backward on that.
There apparently is an effort in the U.S. House to repeal the law entirely. I am confident that repeal will not get 60 votes in the Senate and that President Obama won't sign it, so that bill is DOA.
Those who want to play out the politics of this issue are free to do so. I believe it is now more urgent than ever that state leaders step in and provide bipartisan direction to implement the Affordable Care Act. I am more interested in implementing Obamacare.
Make no mistake, there remains room for mischief in the implementation of the ACA. But in Iowa, our work on health care has been marked by cooperation, not sabotage, and I remain very confident we can work out a bipartisan implementation plan.
Two weeks ago, I called on Governor Branstad and legislative leaders to convene an Iowa health care "summit" to chart a path forward for Iowa and fully implement the ACA. Yesterday, I met with the Governor's Chief of Staff and was encouraged by what I heard about the summit. I proposed that a non-partisan third parties host the event and invite the stakeholders.
My hope is to convene Iowa's health care summit within a matter of weeks.
The summit is important because the health reform process is too important to be left to just the politicians, industry and the usual stakeholders. We need to hear what's best for Iowans.
And when it comes to getting Iowans the health care they need in the highest-quality, most affordable way, there is no room for delay.
We must seize this opportunity to build on the bipartisan success of the past five years in health care reform and truly become "The Healthiest State."

TWELFTH UPDATE: Kevin Russell wrote a good post on how the court arrived at its decision on the Medicaid expansion. George Zornick provides some useful numbers:

Healthcare reform aimed to expand coverage, in part, by expanding Medicaid to cover people up to 133 percent above the poverty line (as compared to 63 percent now)-that is, at or below income of $30,700 for a family of four. This expansion would extend coverage to 16 million additional people by 2019. [...]
The stakes here are not small. A ProPublica analysis of an Urban Institute study found the twenty-six states that sued the federal government contain 8.5 million uninsured people who would be covered under the expansion-more than half of the total number expected to benefit.
The decision is only hours old, and as yet, no Republican governor has announced that he or she will reject the Medicaid expansion. But if anyone does it will have real impacts on many uninsured in that state-in Texas, for example, Rick Perry could yank Medicaid away from 1.8 million people who would get it under an expansion. The biggest question for healthcare reformers and the uninsured going forward is whether Perry and his cohorts will actually pull the trigger.

This news is very discouraging. There's no doubt in my mind that lots of red-state governors will "pull the trigger." The low-income uninsured who will be forced to keep relying on emergency room care aren't as important as taking a stand against the so-called "federal takeover."

THIRTEENTH UPDATE: Representative Tom Latham (R, IA-04) released this statement:

"While the Supreme Court has the duty to determine the constitutionality of the health care law, it does not have the authority to determine if it is good or bad policy for hardworking Americans. Thankfully, it is still the American people who ultimately have the power and the right to make that final judgment.
"I opposed and voted against the health care law because it is bad policy that ignored the voices of the people. Congress must set its sights on completely replacing this bad law with measures that truly will lower health care costs for hardworking taxpayers. I have offered a solution made up of better ideas that offer better solutions that will produce the best results for everyone. My patient-centered approach empowers the American people, not Washington bureaucrats, to choose the best health care plan for themselves, and it puts them in control of their health care, not the government.
"As we move forward, I continue to stand ready to work with any of my colleagues in Congress, regardless of political affiliation, who are willing to enact real solutions for the benefit of the American people."

In this YouTube video, Steve King called today's ruling the most momentous Supreme Court decision since Roe v Wade.

King's challenger Christie Vilsack sounded less excited than most Democrats today.

"Now that the Supreme Court has made their decision, Congress must reform the Affordable Care Act to control the skyrocketing costs of health care in America," said Christie Vilsack.
"This law did little to address the rapidly increasing cost of health care. I believe we must control costs and provide stability to families and small businesses in Iowa.
"With the legal battle over health care reform behind us, Democrats and Republicans must focus on having a real conversation about how we can create jobs and economic opportunity in this country."

That take contrasts sharply with Iowa Democratic Party Chair Sue Dvorsky's statement:

"Today was an unequivocal victory for the American people. Health care has been protected for 34 million Americans, including the 12 percent of Iowans living without health insurance.
"By virtue of President Obama's bold leadership, 18,000 Iowans under 26 can now stay on their parent's insurance and two million Iowans no longer have to worry about lifetime caps or losing insurance when they get sick. Soon, no American will ever again be denied care or charged more due to a pre-existing condition. President Obama believes quality affordable health insurance you can rely on is at the heart of middle class security. The Iowa Democratic Party agrees with this 100 percent.
"We move forward today knowing that this law makes us a stronger and healthier nation. We can now return to the mission of getting Iowans back to work in this recovering economy."

The Cedar Rapids Gazette reports,

Hatch said the governor's staff was open to the summit but the "House leadership has to take a deep breath and find out how they want to proceed."
In an email response, Albrecht wrote, "We are always interested in discussing significant policy issues of this nature with all parties, but that it would be premature to commit to any specific event until the decision had been rendered and we had adequate time to review its implications for Iowa."
House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, also seemed skeptical of the idea.
"I, we, don't want to help Jack Hatch and President Obama in their government takeover of health care," he said.

Paulsen released this comment on the Supreme Court's ruling:

"The federal health care law is plain and simple, the government takeover of health care and a massive tax increase on all Iowans. The Supreme Court's decision today makes it harder for Iowa's small businesses to hire workers, operate their businesses and grow our state. A full repeal of the law is needed and it's up to Iowa voters to end the government takeover of health care."

Iowa House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer had this to say:

"Iowans are perfectly capable of making health care decisions on their own; they don't need Washington, D.C. telling them what to do. This law creates trillions in new government spending that we cannot afford and it ensures Iowans will have limited choices and freedoms. Iowans want an end to bureaucracy and regulations handed down from the federal government. I am confident that as president, Gov. Mitt Romney will enact commonsense reforms based on the free market, not dictated by government bureaucrats."

Iowa Senate Minority Leader Jerry Behn wants us to believe health care reform is not just a tax increase, but the largest tax increase in U.S. history.

"Today's disastrous Supreme Court decision allows the largest tax increase in American history to go into effect, thus guaranteeing more uncertainty and unpredictability for Iowa small businesses and employers. This destructive health care law means a future of higher costs, higher taxes and increasing debt for Iowans and it underscores the need to elect a new president that will put our economy first."

I saved the best for last. State Senator Sorenson sent out this e-mail blast to supporters today (I think it was sent out missing the first part of the first sentence).

from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" said Thomas Jefferson.
Friend, almost 200 years ago on August 24, 1814, the British government captured and destroyed the American capital, and burned the White House and Capitol to the ground. Today reminds me of that day.
The British troops marched up Pennsylvania Avenue and set fire to the White House, but not before, as the story goes, they ate the dinner and drank the wine that was set for a party President Madison was hosting that evening.
So too today the symbolism of American freedom has taken a beating by tyrants occupuying the White House, Supreme Court Building and Capitol buildings in Washington, D.C.
The Supreme Court today decided to uphold tyrant Barack Obama's "signature legislation" of his first term in office, commonly known as Obamacare.
Obamacare was passed as a law that would mandate individuals to purchase health care insurance, and the hope that was that the Republican appointed "majority" on the United States Supreme Court would rule that Obamacare was unconstitutional.
They did rule that it was unconsitutional, but only under the Commerce Clause. America's new Benedict Arnold, President Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, betrayed the Constitution he swore to uphold by allowing Obamacare to live on, insisting that it has legitimate existence in the form of a tax, even though the tax or fine is based on a law that is unconstitutional.
The window to drain the swamp is drawing to a close. For several hundred years now we have taught our children that the patriots who stormed onto the tea ships in Boston Harbor were heroes, and that the forefathers who valued liberty above the "chains and slavery" of Europe's tyrants were forced to forge our country of freedom in the fires of war against the world's biggest superpower.
Today, the world's superpower has once again become the tyrant, but who is standing in the gap ready to fight it?
The European socialist, communist and whatever other dictatorial type of government you'd like to call it has come home to roost. It's here, it's in our back yard, and it's knocking angrily at the back door.
But America's cherished Founding Fathers foresaw the possibility that tyranny might rear his ugly head here in these United States, and made provisions for that possibility.
First of all, they re-affirmed our God given right to Keep and Bear arms. No, the Second Amendment wasn't given to us to ensure that we could go out and shoot a rabbit if need be. It was given to us as a measure of last resort against tyranny, for an armed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.
Second, they gave us a Constitutional Republic form of representative government. Each branch of government has checks and balances on it, and, luckily for us, the states are also a check and balance on a federal government that has clearly overstepped its boundaries.
It has never been more incumbent upon the state of Iowa to remove our own dictators in charge of the Iowa Senate. In the elections this November, we need to remember how the Supreme Court ruled today. We need to remember that the tyrant knocking at the back door wants to come into our house and run our lives, our checkbooks and tell us what we can and can't believe or think.
Federal Government is more than just "out of control." It has reached the point of no return, and it won't be "reformed" or "reworked."
State and local government, along with nullification, are the last peaceful resort against this tyranny.
And because there is so much at stake, we need to make sure that we do everything humanly possible to drag our friends, our neighbors, and the disaffected to the polling locations and replace these despots who want to destroy the fabric of our state and nation.
You see Friend, I've known for some time that there was a chance the courts could try to sneak unconstitutional mandates in on us as a tax or fine. That's why my bill, Senate File 94, explicitly states that "no law shall interfere with the right of a person or entity to pay for lawful medical services, or impose any type of penalty, tax, fee, or fine on a person who declines or fails to contract for health care coverage or declines or fails to participate in any particular health care system or plan."
And that's also why I authored Senate File 2198, a bill establishing and Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act. As a sovereign state, we should never be under an obligation to uphold treacherous and unconstitutional federal mandates.
I was elected to go to Des Moines to fight for my consitutents, and I was elected to go to Des Moines to fight for our rights. In 2011 and 2012, I had 23 cosponsors to my bills dealing specifically with this issue, and in 2013, Lord willing, we'll have the numbers we need to take this fight back to them and pass these bills.
This fight is coming at us full steam, right here in Iowa. The fight is coming, and if we end up with a conservative majority in the Senate in 2013, you can rest assured I stand ready, willing and able to come out swinging on our behalf.
Thomas Jefferson said that the tree of liberty needed to be watered occasionally with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Before it comes to that point once again, we need to exhaust every single other option, much like our forefathers did before the American Revolutionary War.
The US Supreme Court issued their ruling today.
In the November general elections, you and I will issue our ruling as well.
Go find out who your conservative, principled candidate is, and throw everything you've got into helping them get elected.
Sincerely,
Kent Sorenson
Republican State Senator
Warren, Madison and SE Dallas Counties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Sorenson lives in Milo, IA with his wife of 20 years, Shawnee, and their six children.
Sorenson is noted for his staunch conservative positions and his insistence that the rights he fights for are endowed on us by our Creator.
Paid for by Sorenson for Statehouse. Not paid for at taxpayer or government expense.
Mail can be sent to:
Sorenson for Statehouse
PO Box 633
Indianola, IA 50125

LATE UPDATE: Attorney General Tom Miller released this statement on June 28.

Statement on Supreme Court Ruling
For 90 years, as a nation we have tried to secure health coverage for all Americans. For many years, the United States has been the only industrialized country without coverage for all. Congress spent much of two years working intensely on this legislation and finally passed it. It would have been wrong for an unelected court to strike it down with the issues presented. This is a matter for the political process.
The decision today means that ----
* Tens of millions of Americans without health care can secure it.
* Hundreds of millions of Americans who have or get in the future a pre-existing condition will not lose their health care.
* Millions of young people under 26 now covered by their parents' policies will not lose coverage.
Chief Justice John Roberts showed great wisdom and courage in leading and writing today's decision. He found a basis (the tax power) he was comfortable with to uphold the law. He changed constitutional law from a conservative perspective by limiting the ability of Congress to condition federal grants. Because he believed it was the right thing to do, he broke with the beliefs and ideology of his usual allies. I worked with Chief Justice Roberts when he was a lawyer on the Microsoft case. I came to know him and became a big believer in his great character and other high personal qualities. But never more so than today.

Republican Party of Iowa or Ron Paul loyalists of Iowa?

desmoinesdem — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:40:00 GMT

Supporters call them "constitutional conservatives" or members of the "Liberty Movement." Detractors call them "Paulbots" or "Paulinistas." Whatever you call them, you have to admit that the Ron Paul faction of the Republican Party of Iowa pulled off tremendous organizing feats last weekend.
Paul supporters had a tough act to follow going into the Iowa GOP's state convention weekend. In April, they won a solid plurality on the party's new State Central Committee. In May, they secured ten of the at-large delegate slots for the Republican National Convention.

Twelve more RNC delegates were chosen at district conventions on June 15. Incredibly, slates endorsed by Ron Paul supporters swept the delegate elections in Iowa's first, third, and fourth district, and won two of the three slots in the second district. Adding those eleven people to the ten Paul supporters on the at-large slate, "constitutional conservatives" were set to win 21 of Iowa's 28 total delegates to the national convention.

Three national delegate slots go to Iowa's representatives on the Republican National Committee. Iowa GOP Chair A.J. Spiker co-chaired Paul's presidential campaign in Iowa. Republican National Committeeman Steve Scheffler didn't endorse Paul before the Iowa caucuses, but he had the Paul supporters' blessing in his effort to win a second term on the RNC. Republican National Committeewoman Kim Lehman endorsed Rick Santorum for president before the caucuses.

Usually, approval of the at-large RNC delegate slate is a foregone conclusion at the state convention. This year, some Republicans were horrified by the prospect of sending so many delegates who had backed the third-place candidate at the Iowa caucuses.

A delegate named Leta, from Warren County, interjected: "Ron Paul has officially pulled out of the race, so we all should go for Mitt Romney."
Some delegates applauded her comment, while others yelled, "No" and a few booed. Delegate Bethany Gates of Benton County said sending an entire slate of Ron Paul supporters to the national convention is a black eye for Iowa's Caucuses.
"We are going to look ridiculous and we will lose our first-in-the-nation (status)," she said.

In past presidential election years, delegate slots for the national convention have often gone to major party donors or longtime Republican activists. In contrast, some of those elected on the Paul slate have barely been involved with the Iowa GOP in the past. That was a sore point for some Republicans outside the "liberty" camp.

"The nominee from Polk County is someone that not only myself but none of the members of my executive committee that I have asked can tell me who that person is," [Polk County Republican Party co-chairman Dave] Funk said, "and to nominate someone who has not been active in local county politics is inappropriate."
Marlys Popma, a long-time GOP activist, said many the Ron Paul supporters who're going to the national convention don't have a history of voting in Iowa elections.
"I'm sorry. This is a responsibility. Voting is a privilege and a responsibility," Popma said. "How am I going to send these people to Tampa to vote for us if they don't even vote for themselves and their children at home?"
Patrick McQueery, a state convention delegate from Black Hawk County, responded.
"Regarding the voting record of the individuals on the slate, I'd like to submit to you that perhaps they didn't vote because they didn't see anyone fit to vote for on those elections," he said, drawing applause and a few boos.

According to Radio Iowa's O.Kay Henderson, the parliamentarian "struggled to keep order" during the convention proceedings.

The Paul supporters carried the day, as convention delegates approved the Paul-dominated at-large slate by 794 votes to 689. James Q. Lynch published the full list of RNC delegates and alternates, including the at-large slate and the delegates elected at the district conventions on June 15:

National Delegates -- Drew Ivers, chairman, Hamilton; Steve Anders, Pottawattamie; Robert Anderson, Johnson; Andrea Bie, Allamakee; Nancy Bowery, Page; Gov. Terry Branstad, Boone; Michelle Bullock, Polk; Ani DeGroot, Johnson; David Fischer, Polk; Sen. Chuck Grassley, Butler; Mark Hansen, Pottawattamie; Will Johnson, Dubuque; Dusty Juhl, Story; Ed Kelenyi, Jefferson; Brian Kraft, Boone; Gopal Krishna, Polk; Roger Leahy, Jefferson; Jeff Luecke, Dubuque; Rep. Glen Massie, Polk; James Mills, Floyd; Lexy Nuzum, Madison; Brent Oleson, Linn; Kelly Schoen, Linn; Margaret Stoldorf, Montgomery; and Jeff Taylor, Sioux.
Alternate delegates -- Chelsy Askren, Clayton; Jennifer Bowen, Dallas; John Bowery, Page; Buddi Brooks, Pottawattamie; Chris Canny, Johnson; Sam Clovis, Plymouth; Jonas Cutler, Polk; Therese Davis, Guthrie; Aaron Dowdell, Marshal; Benjamin DuBois, Story; Mike Gresham, Fremont; Eric Grote, Franklin; Cody Hoefert, Lyon; Jeff Jorgensen, Pottawattamie; Tracee Knapp, Ringgold; Titus Landegent, Plymouth; Gabe Lanz, Polk; Ruth Long, Union; Lt. Governor Kim Reynolds, Clarke; Lisa Smith, Wapello; Sarah Stokes, Black Haw; Chet Swanson, Jefferson; Kurt Whalen, Scott; David Wiederstein, Cass; Sen. Brad Zaun, Polk.

Electing a new Republican National Committeeman and Committeewoman was also on the agenda for the June 16 state convention, even though the new RNC representatives' terms won't begin until August. Four years ago, Scheffler and Lehman ousted Iowa GOP establishment stalwarts Steve Roberts and Sandy Greiner at the state convention.

Scheffler, who also runs the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, had the Paul supporters' blessing for a second term as committeeman but faced three rivals for the position: Judd Saul, David Chung, and Robert Cramer. The Iowa Republican blog devoted some unflattering coverage to Scheffler last week, related to allegations that he used a church in Burlington to funnel donations to the Iowa Christian Alliance.

Outgoing committeewoman Lehman did not seek a second term on the RNC. Four women sought to replace her, including prominent Paul supporter and retiring Iowa House member Kim Pearson. The other three candidates were Judy Davidson, Tamara Scott, and Margaret Stoldorf. Davidson chairs the Scott County GOP annd stayed neutral before the Iowa caucuses. Scott is Iowa director for Concerned Women of America and co-chaired Michele Bachmann's presidential campaign in Iowa. Stoldorf chairs the Montgomery County GOP and is a past county supervisor. She supported Rick Santorum for president.

Pearson won a plurality but not a majority on the first ballot. Scott came from behind to win on the second ballot in what Craig Robinson called the "lone bright spot" of the day for non-Paul supporters at the convention. In a fun bit of pre-convention intrigue, the Iowa GOP's Rules Committee sought to change the procedure for electing RNC members, so that the person with a plurality on the first ballot would be elected. That rule change was derailed after The Iowa Republican blog pointed out that it violated the state party's constitution. Pearson would have been Iowa's Republican National Committeewoman for the next four years if that rule change had been adopted.

Despite Pearson's loss, it was a banner weekend for Ron Paul supporters in Iowa. They deserve a lot of credit for getting so many like-minded people to show up for the county, district, and state conventions. On June 18 the Liberty Iowa PAC, a political action committee created this spring by former Ron Paul staffers, did a little chest-pounding in this press release:

Liberty Iowa Highlights State Convention Success
LIPAC Efforts Result in National Delegate Wins
Des Moines, IA- Republican conventions in Iowa this weekend saw sweeping victories by constitutional conservatives within the party. Delegates from all over the state poured into Des Moines Friday and Saturday to participate in the selection of Iowa's delegates to the Republican National Convention in August, as well as to elect a National Committeeman, National Committeewoman, and help shape the party platform.
In an unprecedented string of successes, well-organized members of what has become known as the "Liberty Movement" orchestrated a near-sweep of national delegate slots, and defeated a proposed amendment to the RPI constitution aimed at limiting dissent within the party.
21 of the 25 delegates elected to represent Iowa at the Republican national convention are members of the Liberty Movement, and most supported Texas Congressman Ron Paul in the January 3rd Iowa Caucuses.
Liberty Iowa, a PAC aimed at advancing the causes of limited government and individual freedom, celebrated what Executive Director Adil Khan called a "signature win". "Liberty Iowa's network of dedicated activists proved once again that we will be a force in Iowa politics for years to come. Our volunteers were active in coordinating delegates and alternates throughout the convention process, and our efforts were rewarded - Iowa can now count on a strong voice for liberty at the national convention," said Khan.
While Liberty Iowa is not affiliated with any presidential campaign or candidate, many Paul supporters also actively support the PAC. Seven of Iowa's pro-Paul national delegates, as well as several alternates, are active within Liberty Iowa, in both leadership and volunteer capacities. Drew Ivers, Ron Paul's State Campaign Chairman, said that Liberty Iowa's efforts were critical to the convention gains. "A number of groups and organizations of liberty-minded people participated in this victory, including Liberty Iowa, whose efforts proved to be of great value in the weeks leading up to convention." Ivers said that Iowa's delegates would carry an important message to the Tampa convention. "The future of our nation can only be secured by bringing expansive, out-of-control government back under control," said Ivers. "There is a movement to restore liberty and return state and national government to constitutional limits, and Liberty Iowa is an important part of that movement."

Not to rain on the Paul supporters' parade, but they face a big challenge winning over the Iowa GOP's fundraising base. Since Spiker replaced Matt Strawn as state party chair in February, donations have slowed dramatically. I anticipate that the weekend's events will encourage more Republican donors large and small to invest their political resources elsewhere. That will make it hard for the Iowa GOP to fund a strong statewide GOTV program this fall.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

Obama marriage evolution discussion thread

desmoinesdem — Wed, 09 May 2012 20:37:44 GMT

In an interview with ABC News today, President Barack Obama confirmed that he thinks same-sex couples "should be able to get married."

UPDATE: Added more Iowa political reaction below.
Click here to watch the ABC News video. Obama explained that he has always supported equal rights for same-sex couples in the context of civil unions, but balked at backing full marriage rights because the word "marriage" evokes such strong feelings about cultural and religious traditions. He continued,

I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.

On one level, this interview reflected a cynical calculation: continuing to hedge on marriage equality had become more politically costly for Obama than supporting full marriage rights for lesbian and gay couples. The president was careful to say that despite his personal opinion, he supports states' right to decide which marriages to recognize. In other words, he won't be a crusader for the right to marry everywhere in the country.

But on another level, it is momentous for the first African-American president become the first president and first major-party presidential candidate to openly support marriage equality. Also, the timing of today's interview was powerful. Yesterday North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment banning not just marriage but any legal recognition for same-sex couples. Obama carried North Carolina in 2008 and will make a serious play to hold that state, which is why the Democratic National Convention will be held there. He could have sat tight with his 2008 stand against discrimination but not completely for equality, but he didn't. Sure, national polling indicates steadily growing support for marriage rights, but not necessarily in all the swing states Obama needs to win this November.

I'll update this post as more political figures react to the president's comments. I got a laugh out of Iowa Democratic Party Chair Sue Dvorsky's response. Never a fan of pressuring the president from the left, Dvorsky declined last week to join a group of state party chairs who want marriage equality in the national Democratic Party's platform. But less than a half-hour after ABC aired Obama's comments, Dvorsky was quick to pat the president on the back:

"Same-sex couples should be able to get married."-President Obama // Right you are, sir!

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread.

P.S.- Three years after same-sex couples gained the right to marry in Iowa, Public Policy Polling's latest survey of Iowa voters found 76 of respondents said "legalized gay marriage has either had a positive impact or no impact on their lives."

UPDATE: Statement released by Dvorsky:

Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Sue Dvorsky released the following statement following President Obama's remarks today (5/9/12) in support of marriage equality.
"Today, President Obama echoed the sentiments of countless Iowans who believe all loving couples should be able to honor their commitments through marriage. In 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruled that prohibiting gay and lesbian couples from marrying is unconstitutional. It was a historic day for our state and a tremendous moment for committed couples as well as for the families and friends of Iowa's LGBT community.
"While this is arguably one of the most important and historic statements President Obama has made publicly on LGBT issues, his remarks follow a series of policies this administration has put forth in support of equal rights for LGBT Americans. The values that the President cares most deeply about are how we treat other people. President Obama recognizes that people are going to have differing views on marriage and those views, even if we disagree strongly, should be respected.
"As we applaud the position taken by President Obama today, we must also acknowledge the fight for full equality for LGBT Americans is far from over. Our opposition continues to push a divisive and well-funded tactical agenda which seeks to undermine equality efforts across the country.
"The likely Republican nominee for President, Mitt Romney, not only opposes same sex marriage, but he believes we should amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent committed gay and lesbian couples from marrying. A Federal marriage amendment, such as the one Romney supports, would be the first time this country amended the Constitution to deny Americans equal rights. Additionally, his opposition to civil union could potentially rollback a whole range of equal rights and benefits for gay and lesbian Americans."

Statement released by Republican Party of Iowa Chair A.J. Spiker:

DES MOINES, Iowa- The Republican Party of Iowa released the following statement from Chairman A.J. Spiker in response to President Obama's gay marriage decision:
"Marriage is an institution that can only be between one man and one woman. While President Obama continues to play politics, the Republican Party of Iowa will continue to support maintaining the traditional view of marriage as between one man and one woman."
RNC Platform: Preserving Traditional Marriage
Because our children's future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives. Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation's most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families. Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage. As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights.

SECOND UPDATE: Within 90 minutes of ABC's broadcast today, the Obama campaign pulled in $1 million in donations.

The Obama campaign and Democratic Representative Bruce Braley's re-election campaign both seized on a good list-building opportunity today. Excerpt from the Obama campaign's e-mail blast:

[desmoinesdem] --
Today, I was asked a direct question and gave a direct answer:
I believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
I hope you'll take a moment to watch the conversation, consider it, and weigh in yourself on behalf of marriage equality:
http://my.barackobama.com/Marr...
I've always believed that gay and lesbian Americans should be treated fairly and equally. I was reluctant to use the term marriage because of the very powerful traditions it evokes. And I thought civil union laws that conferred legal rights upon gay and lesbian couples were a solution.
But over the course of several years I've talked to friends and family about this. I've thought about members of my staff in long-term, committed, same-sex relationships who are raising kids together. Through our efforts to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, I've gotten to know some of the gay and lesbian troops who are serving our country with honor and distinction.
What I've come to realize is that for loving, same-sex couples, the denial of marriage equality means that, in their eyes and the eyes of their children, they are still considered less than full citizens.
Even at my own dinner table, when I look at Sasha and Malia, who have friends whose parents are same-sex couples, I know it wouldn't dawn on them that their friends' parents should be treated differently.
So I decided it was time to affirm my personal belief that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
I respect the beliefs of others, and the right of religious institutions to act in accordance with their own doctrines. But I believe that in the eyes of the law, all Americans should be treated equally. And where states enact same-sex marriage, no federal act should invalidate them.
If you agree, you can stand up with me here.
Thank you,
Barack

Here's an e-mail blast Bruce Braley's Congressional campaign sent out the evening of May 9. It links to a page collecting signatures for a "thank you" note to the president.

[desmoinesdem] --
It's a historic day for civil rights in America.
In an interview this afternoon, President Obama publicly endorsed marriage equality, saying "same-sex couples should be able to get married."
President Obama has learned what we already know here in Iowa: that loving, committed couples from all backgrounds deserve to have the same rights under the law. The right to adopt children. The right to be free from discrimination. The right to pursue happiness. And the right to marry the person you love.
Let's show President Obama that we appreciate his strong stand for equal rights.
Tell President Obama: thank you for supporting marriage equality.
I'll take your thank you notes and deliver them to the White House.
Today's news is a step forward - but we still have a long way to go. My hope is that President Obama's change of heart helps convince more people that true equality under the law means ending marriage discrimination. After all, freedom means freedom for everybody.
Thank President Obama for supporting marriage equality.
Sincerely,
Bruce Braley

THIRD UPDATE: Senator Tom Harkin told reporters the president did "the right thing, the courageous thing."

Harkin says his personal views on gay marriage have changed during his time in Washington. "My thinking on this has evolved over the years, too," Harkin says. "All of us have (evolved), as we get a better concept of civil rights and expanding equality under the Constitution of the United States, all of us, many of us, our thoughts have evolved, mine along with it."
Iowa is among six states and the District of Columbia that allow same-sex marriage. Harkin says he's done a one-80 on this subject in the past 15 years. "I'm a co-sponsor of the bill which is the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, which, in all frankness, I will say that I voted for back in the '90s. I think now we recognize, at least I recognize, that this is not correct."
DOMA, enacted in 1996, is a federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. Harkin says voters in North Carolina and elsewhere likely haven't heard the last of this issue. "If you'd left it up to North Carolina and South Carolina and Alabama and Mississippi back in the '60s, they would've amended their constitutions to deny civil rights to African-Americans," Harkin says.

One of Iowa's leading opponents of same-sex marriage, Bob Vander Plaats, had a very different take:

Vander Plaats predicted Obama will pay a heavy price in the 2012 election where he will be opposed by Republican Mitt Romney.
"I believe the base that was inspired to make Obama a one-term president will only be more inspired. And if I'm Mitt Romney today, I am smiling bigger than life. I believe it will make Obama a one-term president," he said.
Vander Plaats said it will be important for Romney to properly message his stance on marriage.
"He can't waffle on it. He is going to show leadership, 'That you can trust me, that I will be for one-man, one-woman marriage.' He has campaigned that way. He has signed the National Organization for Marriage's pledge, which includes a federal marriage amendment for one-man, one-woman," he said.