Three of Iowa’s four U.S. House members were part of the bipartisan majority that voted to guarantee same-sex marriage rights across the country.

Every House Democrat, including Iowa’s Representative Cindy Axne (IA-03), voted for the Respect for Marriage Act, which passed on July 19 by 267 votes to 157 (roll call). So did 47 Republicans, including Representatives Ashley Hinson (IA-01) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-02). Representative Randy Feenstra (IA-04) joined the majority of House Republicans in opposing the legislation.

The bill repeals the federal Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in 1996 to protect states from having to recognize same-sex marriages, and to define marriage in federal laws and regulations as between a husband and wife. The Respect for Marriage Act also prohibits states from refusing to recognize any marriage due to the “sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin” of the individuals involved.

House leaders brought the bill to the floor in response to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote in a concurring opinion to the Dobbs case that having overturned Roe v. Wade, the court should reverse other precedents. Among other cases, Thomas mentioned the 1965 Griswold opinion establishing a right to contraception and the 2015 Obergefell ruling on marriage equality. Like the Roe and Griswold decisions, the Obergefell majority relied on a legal analysis that recognizes some liberty interests (like privacy and the right to marry), even though the Constitution does not specifically mention those rights.

Jim Leach is among 27 former Republican members of the U.S. House who spoke out this week for changing the GOP in the face of “rising political extremism.” Four former governors, along with several former ambassadors, cabinet secretaries, or Republican Party leaders are also among the 152 people who signed the “Call for American Renewal” published on May 13.

The document cites “the patriotic duty of citizens to act collectively in defense of liberty and justice” when “forces of conspiracy, division, and despotism arise.” The signers “declare our intent to catalyze an American renewal, and to either reimagine a party dedicated to our founding ideals or else hasten the creation of such an alternative.”

A longtime Republican member of Congress from Iowa has renounced his party following the attempts by elected officials and a violent mob to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

“I will no longer claim I am a Republican tonight,” Jim Nussle tweeted on January 6, “as I am outraged and devastated by the actions of too many elected Republicans (some I know and served with) and supporters. Today a final line was crossed that I will not excuse. The GOP is NO more and left me and others behind.”

Later that evening, 121 House Republicans–more than half the GOP caucus–voted to reject Arizona’s electoral votes for Joe Biden, as did six GOP senators.

Pete McRoberts, a close observer of many Iowa Democratic campaigns, kicks off Bleeding Heartland’s series of guest contributions on how the party can recover after routs in two consecutive elections. -promoted by desmoinesdem

The days after any election offer for winners, some hope and excitement, and for losers, the opportunity to examine – in as close to real time as possible – where candidates and organizations succeeded, and failed. We get a re-set. If used properly, the days and weeks after an election loss – no matter how hard that loss is – can affirmatively help us do better at what we sought to do.

This is not a wholesale analysis of the Democratic Party in Iowa or the 2016 numbers, and it’s not a general ‘how to’ guide. It’s an attempt to go under the hood, and look at some very specific structural issues highlighted by the elections of 2014 and 2016. At a gut level, it’s very easy to conclude there’s no upside of such a clear election loss. But these losses are something more than simply parties exchanging power, or a reflection of competing views about the future.. They represent one of our deepest forms of communication with one another. If we listen — and act — we can create a party in Iowa that once again, not only wins elections, but is truly representative of the millions of people in the state whose hopes and fears are both real, and for whom we do our work.

Ten years ago, President George W. Bush made the disastrous mistake of taking this country to war against Iraq. I’ve posted some links about the costs and casualties of war after the jump.

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread. I appreciate the work and commitment of those who tried to derail the speeding train toward invasion, and of those who protested the war after it began. I did nothing to stop the war in Iraq–just sat in a rocking chair cradling a new baby, feeling horrified while watching the news on television.

The U.S. House of Representatives took 40 minutes on the floor this morning to recognize Leonard Boswell’s public service during his military career, time in the Iowa Senate, and 16 years in Congress. Radio Iowa posted a link to the full audio from today’s proceedings. Republican Tom Latham, who defeated Boswell in IA-03 last month, opened the tribute with warm remarks about his colleague. He also read out comments sent by many Iowans, including Governor Terry Branstad and Ken Sagar of the Iowa Federation of Labor. Iowans can e-mail their own remarks to Boswell.Tribute@mail.house.gov today. Those e-mails will supposedly be part of the official Congressional record.

After the jump I’ve enclosed some excerpts from today’s speeches and public statements released about Boswell’s retirement. Any memories about Leonard Boswell are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: Added a touching story about Boswell below.

Ten years ago today, President George W. Bush signed a bill called the “United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism,” better known as the PATRIOT Act. It’s a good time to reflect on the law’s impact as well as how the Iowans in Congress voted on its provisions over the last decade.

A number of signs indicate that Rastetter has been be quietly gearing up for a campaign for quite awhile. His involvement in Iowa Future Fund, the shady 501(c)(4) that ran anti-Culver ads, was my first clue. (I first posted about Rastetter and IFF/IPP at Bleeding Heartland here.)

Another clue was that someone privately registered “brucerastetter.com” and “brucerastetter.org” in early December 2007. 

An even bigger clue was that Rastetter hired Nicholas T. “Nick” Ryan in January 2007. Ryan had just come off a stint as campaign manager for Jim Nussle's failed gubernatorial bid.

Bruce Rastetter is CEO of  Hawkeye Energy Holdings, Iowa's largest ethanol producer and the third largest in the nation. In September, the Cyclone Conservative commented that “a Rastetter candidacy would also be attractive because Rastetter would carry a tremendous amount of gravitas on renewable fuels and agriculture issues.”

CC also speculated that Rastetter's $1.75 million gift to Iowa State University was a political ploy to garner favorable publicity for Rastetter, the candidate. Sounds plausible to me.

If Rastetter runs, Iowa Dems can expect an enormous amount of money to be poured into his campaign, both on and off the books. The  probable reason for the secrecy about Rastetter's intentions is to catch Tom Harkin and Iowa Dems off guard about how stiff Harkin's competition will be in terms of the candidate and money.

Richard O. Jacobson, founder of Jacobson Companies, is chairman of Hawkeye Energy. Jacobson kicked in $50k to Nussle in '06.

Rastetter is very close to Peter M. Castleman, chairman of J. H. Whitney & Company, a private equity firm based in Connecticut. Rastetter is also linked to Whitney partner, Russell Stidololph, through Altenergy LLC. Nick Ryan uses nryan@alternergyllc.com. 

Thomas H. Lee Partners, a Boston private equity firm, has a majority stake in Hawkeye Energy. Expect financial support for Rastetter from the THL partners.

At one point, Rastetter and his partners at J. H. Whitney planned to make a $200 million investment in Iowa wind farms but not much as been mentioned about it recently. I am particularly curious about the wind farms because I read yesterday that T. Boone Pickens is investing $10 billion to create a chain of wind farms that stretches from Texas through the Great Plains. 

If Pickens is behind Rastetter, Iowa Dems are in big trouble. In 2004, Pickens contributed $1 milion to Swift Boat Vets and $2.5 million to Progress For America, another 527, that raised $48 million. The DCI Group, the premier Republican slime shop, was behind PFA.  

I strongly suspect that Iowan, Brian Kennedy, is managing Iowa Future Fund/Iowa Progress Project. Kennedy, a DCI Group exec, is co-founder of PFA. More on the link between the DCI Group, the Iowa Future Fund and its affiliate, the American Future Fund here.

Kennedy made a failed primary bid for an Iowan congressional seat in 2006. He is also the former chairman of the Iowa Republican Party.   

The brucerastetter.com website lists 400 Locust Street, Suite 330, Des Moines, IA 50309 as its address. I checked the online phonebook and couldn't find an organization specifically listed in Suite 330 but I did find Summit Capital Group at Suite 480.

Summit Capital, a Rastetter company, is the one that employs Nick Ryan. Although Ryan claimed he was first employed by Summit Capital in January 2007, Summit Capital was only registered with the Iowa Secretary of State on February 21, 2007.

The Arag Group, curiously enough, is also listed at 400 Locust St, Suite 480.

That's it for me and Bruce Rastetter for the moment but first a question. If I am right about Rastetter running, did Rastetter violate any campaign laws by raising money without declaring his candidacy? Me, I'd go after Rastetter with a chainsaw if I were an Iowa Dem.

(Crossposted at TPM Cafe)  

Update: As senateguru noted in the comments, the deadline to register for the June senate primary has passed. But let's take a look at the candidates who did register: George S. Eichhorn, Christopher Reed and Steve Rathje.

Steve Rathje is the only candidate to register his campaign committee with the FEC. Since he registered in September 2005, he has raised $123k which came mostly from relatives, friends and Rathje personally. At 3/31/08, Rathje had a whopping $7k in cash on hand.

Compare Rathje's fundraising to that of Harkin's 2002 opponent, Greg Ganske. At 3/31/02, Ganske had $1.3 million in cash on hand and had spent $800k in the first quarter of 2002 alone. Ganske ultimately spent a total of $5 million vs Harkin's $8 million.

Interesting that Rathje's website is on the National Republican Party's server of choice, Smartech. Smartech was host to the off-record email accounts of many White House staffers and many of the so-called “missing” emails went through Smartech's servers.

Conventional Iowa wisdom is that the Republicans won't run a strong candidate against Harkin but this field of candidates is so pathetic, it lends strength to my argument that Rastetter could very well make a surprise run. I just don't know enough about election law to know if it is doable.  What if all three primary candidates dropped out?

If anyone can tell me more about Harkin's likely opponent, I'd appreciate it. I'd appreciate it even more if anyone knows how the prospective candidate will raise a few million bucks to run a respectable race.   

Well, well, well.  It looks like Senate Democrats are finally starting to play hardball with President Bush.  From Nicole Duran at IowaPolitics.com:

“Senate Democrats aren’t feeling very charitable toward former GOP Rep. Jim Nussle.

Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) confirmed Tuesday that an anonymous “hold” has been placed on Nussle’s nomination to lead the Office of Management and Budget.

Conrad said he did not know who placed the hold — any senator can prevent a nomination, or legislation, from coming to the floor by objecting, even anonymously, to the Senate majority leader. Holds are traditionally honored, though the majority leader may ignore it if he feels the hold has been placed for too long.”

I’m not sure what prompted Senate Dems to start getting tough on Bush and his nominees, but I’m willing to bet that his threatened veto of any pullout legislation on the Defense Authorization is partially the cause.

Nussle has consistently been a Bush clone and loyal foot soldier doing as commanded with regards to the federal budget.  He helped oversee the creation of the largest debts and deficits in recent American history.  That’s a principled enough reason to oppose his nomination, if you ask me.

I’ve blogged about it before over at Political Forecast, but I’m not too enthusiastic with the way that Senate Democrats have responded to Jim Nussle’s nomination to be Director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  Maybe it is all of the work I did during the gubernatorial race talking about Nussle’s failed leadership on the House Budget Committee as it’s chair–leading us into horrible deficits, uncontrollable spending, and ridiculous tax cuts for the richest Americans.

Or maybe it is just that we know he’s a confrontational hack who shouldn’t be charged with leading such a complex and tough office, one that requires someone with some kind of expertise is actual management and appropriate budgeting techniques.  The reality, however, is the that OMB is largely a political office and it made sense for Bush to pick someone who was willing to give up the next two years to fight with Congressional Democratic leadership about the Republican President’s budget.

Still, the least the Democrats could do is raise objections to Nussle’s past experience–deficits and debt–and instead call for someone more inclined to have positive budget experience, yet be known for compromise and hard work, not hackery.

I guess that’s why I’m slightly surprised at today’s Register story where Jane Norman reports that Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, is not all that enthusiastic about Nussle’s nomination and has some reservations.  Maybe that’s just political cover for the left flank by telling grumpy activists like me that they’re not planning for anything great coming from, but are going to confirm him anyway.

Or maybe it is some serious action that would make Conrad more inclined to grill him during confirmation hearings.  Conrad is no liberal in the way that people consider Iowa’s Tom Harkin (who has indicated he’ll likely vote to confirm Nussle), but Conrad has a strong populist streak on trade and labor issues.  Nussle’s record on those issues, particularly with the budget, is not good at all.  Kudos to Conrad for stepping up, and I hope he takes it to another level.