Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz gave Jon Huntsman a “lesson in Iowa politics” Monday, via a press release declaring the former Utah governor “not ready for the big dance.” Schultz ridiculed Huntsman’s excuse for skipping the Iowa caucuses before rifling off a few conservative talking points about Huntsman’s record. National and local media picked up Schultz’s comments.

Schultz’s opinion of Huntsman wouldn’t be particularly newsworthy, but I question the wisdom of using the official Secretary of State’s website to push a political statement written in “smackdown” tone. More thoughts on who is and isn’t “ready for the big dance” are below.

UPDATE: On June 9 the Iowa Democratic Party filed an ethics complaint against Schultz; details are at the end of this post.

Iowa’s five U.S. House representatives split on party lines when the House approved a 2012 budget for the Homeland Security department on June 2. Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted with most of their caucus for the bill, which significantly reduces Homeland Security appropriations from current levels. Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) voted against the bill, as did all but 17 House Democrats.

Follow me after the jump for more about how the Iowans voted on notable Homeland Security budget amendments. I also discuss various amendments King tried to add to this bill.

A grand jury indicted former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on June 3 on six counts of conspiracy, illegal campaign contributions, and false statements. Read the federal government’s case against Johnny Reid Edwards here (pdf). The charges revolve around more than $900,000 used to support Edwards’ mistress and a campaign staffer who claimed paternity of Edwards’ child. Prosecutors say that money, provided by the late Fred Baron and the heiress Bunny Mellon, should have been considered campaign contributions, in which case they were way over the legal limit for a presidential campaign.

Edwards looks ready to fight the charges in court. He told journalists in a brief statement that he “did wrong” but “did not break the law” and “never ever thought that I was breaking the law.” Federal election law is unusual in that violations are only considered criminal if the offending politician knew he or she was committing a crime. So prosecutors will have to prove that the gifts in question should be considered campaign contributions, that Baron and Mellon would not have made those gifts if Edwards had not been a candidate, and that Edwards knew he was breaking the law by submitting false reports to the Federal Election Commission. Edwards will contend that he had a longstanding friendship with Baron (who is deceased) and Mellon, and that they would have helped him conceal his extramarital affair from his family in any case.

So far legal analysts aren’t impressed by the prosecution’s case: see comments from Richard Pildes, Rick Hasen and Jeralyn Merritt. A 2002 FEC opinion involving a $25,000 loan to pay a divorce lawyer representing a member of Congress may support the Edwards defense. Looks like Bleeding Heartland user ragbrai08 was right to say Edwards should wait to see the indictment rather than cut a deal with prosecutors.

The Washington Post editorial board (never fans of Edwards) criticized the “novel application of the law” underlying this prosecution, adding, “It is troubling that the Justice Department would choose to devote its scarce resources to pursuing this questionable case.” Considering that no one has been prosecuted for systemic foreclosure fraud, making torture official U.S. policy or various other abuses, one does wonder why the Department of Justice has gone down this path. My theory is that the U.S. attorney in North Carolina is looking for a popular case to boost a future political career. The DOJ doesn’t mind the media circus and may even welcome the distraction from more pressing national issues.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend? Bleeding Heartland readers of a certain age will remember Lawrence Eagleburger and Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who both passed away this week.

UPDATE: J. Andrew Curliss and Joseph Neff report more details about the plea bargaining negotiations preceding the Edwards indictments. Merritt thinks Edwards was right to turn down the government’s offers and predicts that there will be further negotiations before court proceedings begin.

With less than a month remaining until the start of the 2012 fiscal year, Iowa House Republican leaders have stepped up efforts this week to draft the two-year budget Governor Terry Branstad is demanding. Republicans have drafted an omnibus budget bill combining all the usual appropriations bills, plus a few other things on their legislative wish list. The omnibus bill includes two small gestures toward a compromise with Democrats who control the Iowa Senate. However, Senate Democrats don’t sound ready to accept this package as the final work on state spending for the next two years.

Details and early reaction to this week’s budget news are after the jump.  

Public Policy Polling’s new Iowa survey indicates a wide-open race among Republican presidential candidates with Mike Huckabee out of the running. PPP surveyed 481 Iowa Republicans from May 27 through May 30. Given a choice between Representative Michele Bachmann, former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Representative Ron Paul, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, 21 percent of respondents expressed a preference for Romney as the GOP presidential nominee. Cain and Palin tied for second with 15 percent, followed by Gingrich (12 percent), Bachmann (11 percent), Pawlenty (10 percent), Paul and “someone else/undecided” (8 percent), and Huntsman (0 percent).

Asked to choose a candidate if Palin did not run for president, respondents favored Romney (26 percent), Cain (16 percent), Gingrich (15 percent), Bachmann (14 percent), Paul (11 percent), Pawlenty (10 percent) and Huntsman (1 percent).

I don’t know why PPP didn’t include former Senator Rick Santorum on these lists, since Santorum has hired staff and made several Iowa visits during the past year. The full polling memo (pdf) includes favorability numbers for Santorum and a bunch of other Republicans who have been mentioned as possible presidential candidates.

I wouldn’t put too much stock in a poll taken seven or eight months before the Iowa caucuses, especially a survey over Memorial Day weekend, when many potential respondents would not be at home. Still, Cain has to be thrilled to be making inroads with Iowa Republicans. This poll will make it difficult for Romney to avoid participating in the Iowa GOP’s August straw poll fundraiser. The results must be disappointing for Pawlenty and Gingrich, who have spent time and energy in Iowa recently and have high-profile Republican endorsers here. Tom Jensen of PPP saw a silver lining for Pawlenty, though:

Romney’s leading in Iowa based on his strength with centrist and center right Republican voters. With moderates he’s at 34% to 16% for Palin, 13% for Paul, and 11% for Gingrich. With ‘somewhat conservative’ voters he’s at 24% to 15% for Pawlenty, 13% for Palin, and 12% for Gingrich and Cain. His strength with those two groups outweighs his continuing weakness with the furthest right group of voters in the state, which constitute the largest segment of the Republican electorate at 41%. With those ‘very conservative’ folks Romney can muster only a fourth place finish at 13%. Cain and Palin tie for the lead with that group of voters at 19% followed by Bachmann at 15%. […]

Pawlenty doesn’t poll the strongest head to head among Romney among ‘very conservative’ voters- he leads by 17 compared to a 21 point lead for Palin and a 24 point advantage for Bachmann with that group. But with center right voters- those calling themselves ‘somewhat conservative’- Romney leads Pawlenty by just a single point while he has a 19 point advantage over Palin and a 22 point lead over Bachmann with that group. What that says to me is that many Republicans are looking for someone more conservative than Romney but someone who isn’t bound to get creamed in the general election the way Palin, Bachmann, and Cain probably would. That’s very good news for Pawlenty if it ever plays itself out in real life.

Jensen also noted that non-candidates Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, or Paul Ryan posted better favorability numbers in this poll than any of the declared Republican presidential candidates.

Share any thoughts about the GOP presidential race in this thread.

UPDATE: PPP replied to my question about not including Santorum in this survey. A maximum of eight candidates can be tested in this automated poll; adding Santorum would have meant removing Huntsman, about whom “there’s much more national interest.” Since Huntsman hasn’t been in Iowa while Santorum has spent time here and hired staff, I would have liked to see whether Santorum is gaining ground like Cain.

The U.S. House of Representatives failed to approve a presidential request to increase the debt ceiling yesterday. Members rejected a motion to suspend the rules and proceed with that bill by a 318 to 97 vote (roll call). Every House Republican present voted against raising the debt ceiling, including Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05). Nearly half the Democratic caucus also voted against yesterday’s motion, including Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03). House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer advised Democratic colleagues to reject what he described as a “political charade” aimed at producing fodder for campaign attack ads. Bruce Braley (IA-01) missed yesterday’s vote to attend a family funeral but released a statement saying he would have opposed raising the debt ceiling. I’ve posted his comments after the jump. Since last November’s election, Braley has consistently been talking like a deficit hawk.

The U.S. hit its current debt ceiling in mid-May. If Congress does not raise the limit by August 2, the federal government will not be able to pay all of its bills. Republican leaders are pushing for major domestic spending cuts as a condition for raising the borrowing limit. Naturally, austerity won’t apply to the military budget, and that’s fine with Boswell, Loebsack, Latham and King.

I believe Democrats are making a mistake by accepting Republican demands for strings attached to the debt ceiling hike. President Bill Clinton refused to make such negotiations part of a deal on raising the borrowing limit in 1995, saying he would not let Congressional Republicans use the occasion to “backdoor their budget proposals.”

King asserted yesterday that repealing the federal health insurance reform law would “save the taxpayers $2.6 trillion” and would be a good start toward finding spending cuts to offset the president’s debt request. I’ve posted his full statement after the jump. At this writing I have not seen official comments on the debt ceiling from Loebsack, Boswell or Latham. If those become available, I will update this post.

UPDATE: Latham’s statements on the debt ceiling are now after the jump.

Catching up on news from last week, Democrat Bruce Braley (IA-01) was the only Iowan in the U.S. House to vote against the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012, which passed May 26 on a 322 to 96 vote (roll call). While Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02), Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03), Tom Latham (R, IA-04) and Steve King (R, IA-05) all supported the bill’s final passage, their votes broke down differently on a number of important amendments the House considered Thursday.

Follow me after the jump for details on those votes and statements some of Iowa’s representatives released regarding this bill.

Seven Iowa businessmen are flying to New Jersey today to dine with the man they hope will improve a comically bad Republican presidential field. I understand the idea behind recruiting Governor Chris Christie, but I don’t get why the power-brokers are calling so much attention their efforts.

More thoughts on the courting of Christie are after the jump, along with a bonus tip on what not to say if you want outsiders to take the Iowa caucuses seriously.

What’s on your mind this holiday weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

Several energy-related stories caught my eye this week. New analysis suggests the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant is worse than initially thought, because “containment chambers of damaged reactors […] were likely breached.” In terms of radioactive material released into the ocean, Fukushima could become “even larger than Chernobyl.”

Earlier this month, the Japan Times reported, “High radiation readings taken in the No. 1 reactor building the night of March 11 suggest it was the quake rather than the loss of cooling that critically damaged the Fukushima No. 1 power plant […].”

As part of its response to the nuclear crisis, the Japanese government may require “all new buildings and houses to come fitted with solar panels by 2030.” Solar power has the potential to reduce demand for electricity during peak hours.

In local news, Ben Foster, a former campaign staffer for presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty, pleaded guilty this week to public intoxiation during an embarrassing incident this spring. Authorities dropped a trespassing charge against Foster, who tried to get into the wrong house in the middle of the night. He’s lucky he didn’t get charged with driving drunk en route to this misadventure.

Sarah Palin will be the focus of a two-hour-long film, which its director will premiere in Iowa “late next month before expanding the release to New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.” No word yet on which Iowa theater will show the movie. Meanwhile, a former top aide to Palin during her time as governor of Alaska just published a “scathing tell-all” book.

Senator Chuck Grassley’s twitter technique caught the eye of Steven Nelson at the Daily Caller. I disagree with Grassley twitter detractors like Sam Biddle. It’s refreshing to see a politician speak in his own voice, without running it by communications staff. This is still my all-time favorite Grassley tweet.

Prospects for a passenger rail connection between Chicago and Iowa City do not look good as state budget negotiations continue between Governor Terry Branstad and legislative leaders. Last October, the federal government awarded $230 million toward a rail line from Chicago to Iowa City. The Chicago to Quad Cities portion of the project will go ahead, because the state of Illinois has approved matching funds. However, Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen says House Republicans are still dead-set against allocating state funds in fiscal year 2012 to match the federal grant. Iowa would need to appropriate $10 million, plus approximately $3 million in annual operating subsidies, although local officials in communities that would benefit from the rail link have offered to cover some of the operating funding.

Earlier this month, Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01) urged state legislators not to pass up the chance “to stimulate Iowa’s economy and create jobs by funding the high-speed passenger rail line.” Braley serves on the House Transportation Committee and has long advocated passenger rail between Chicago and Dubuque as well as to the Quad Cities and Iowa City. With Republicans in control of the U.S. House, the federal government is unlikely to make further large investments in passenger rail as part of a transportation bill or an economic stimulus package.

Central Iowa elected officials and business leaders also support the planned line to Iowa City, with the hope that rail would eventually be extended through Des Moines to Council Bluffs/Omaha. This week Democratic State Senator Matt McCoy, who represents part of Des Moines, urged Governor Terry Branstad to get involved and advocate for the passenger rail funds. McCoy argued that the project has economic benefits, is cost-effective and would reduce oil consumption. I’ve posted an excerpt from his editorial after the jump.

Branstad has been saying for months that he opposes state subsidies for rail. (Never mind that roads receive far larger subsidies than train travel.) I had hoped that Chamber of Commerce and Greater Des Moines Partnership types would be able to change Branstad’s mind on this issue. However, the governor told EasternIowaGovernment.com last week that he was “letting them sort that [rail funding] out between the House and Senate.”

Hours before three controversial PATRIOT Act provisions were set to expire, Congress approved a bill extending the provisions until June 1, 2015. At the Open Congress blog, Donny Shaw summarized the legal points:

They include the authority for “roving” wiretaps that allows the government to monitor computers that may occasionally be used by suspected terrorists, the “tangible records provision” that requires banks, telecoms and libraries to hand over any customer information the government requests without being allows to inform the customer, and the “lone wolf” provision allowing the government to track terrorists acting independently of any foreign power or organization.

Congress approved a three-month extension of those provisions in February. The bill that just passed was a compromise between House Republican and Senate Democratic leaders who disagreed on how far to extend the powers. A House bill would have extended the “lone wolf” authority permanently and the others for six and a half years. A Senate bill would have extended all three powers until the end of 2013.

Many senators have complained that the PATRIOT Act provisions in question undermine civil liberties, but few had the stomach to filibuster the bill when the Senate considered a motion to proceed on May 23. Iowans Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley were among the 74 senators voting for considering the PATRIOT Act extension (roll call). Just eight senators voted to filibuster this bill; another 18 senators did not vote on the motion to proceed.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used a legislative maneuver to block various amendments seeking to reform the PATRIOT Act from receiving votes on the floor yesterday. The Senate voted on just two amendments, both submitted by Republican Rand Paul. Motions to table those amendments passed with overwhelming majorities, 91 to 4 and 85 to 10. Both Harkin and Grassley voted to table Paul’s amendments.

Harkin and Grassley disagreed on final passage of the bill, however, as they did when the last extension came to a vote in February. Grassley was among 72 senators voting for the four-year PATRIOT Act extension; Harkin was among the 23 voting against it (roll call).

The bill then went to the House for consideration. After some debate it passed on Thursday evening by a vote of 250 to 153. The roll call shows that Democrat Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) all voted yes, while Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted no, with the majority of their caucus. Quite a few House members crossed party lines on this bill; 31 Republicans voted no, while 54 Democrats voted yes. Iowa’s House delegation split the same way in February when the three-month PATRIOT Act extension passed.

After the House voted to concur with the Senate amendment to the bill, the PATRIOT Act extension went to President Barack Obama’s desk. Because the president is in France, White House officials said Obama signed the bill before midnight using some kind of “autopen” machine. That’s the first I ever heard of that technology.

After the jump I’ve posted a memo from Grassley on the PATRIOT Act extension, which the Republican senator’s office sent to the media on Thursday evening. At this writing I have not seen press releases on this vote from Harkin, Braley, Loebsack, Boswell, Latham or King.

Glenn Greenwald wrote a good post on the cynicism of Democrats who have been using the Republican talking points of yesteryear to browbeat colleagues into rubber-stamping the PATRIOT Act extension.

UPDATE: Added King’s press release on this vote after the jump.

James Hill of ABC News reported this week,

The United States Department of Justice has green-lighted the prosecution of former presidential candidate John Edwards for alleged violations of campaign laws while he tried to cover up an extra-marital affair, ABC News has learned. […]

Edwards has been the focus of a lengthy federal investigation focusing on hundreds of thousands of dollars allegedly provided by two wealthy supporters. The government will contend those were illegal donations that ultimately went to support and seclude his mistress, Rielle Hunter.

Some unnamed sources suggest Edwards’ legal team is working on a plea agreement so that he would not have to stand trial. But a high-powered attorney for Edwards, former White House counsel Greg Craig, sounds ready to fight, asserting that “not one penny from the Edwards campaign was involved,” there is “no civil or criminal precedent for such a prosecution,” and the “Justice Department has wasted millions of dollars and thousands of hours on a matter more appropriately a topic for the Federal Election Commission to consider, not a criminal court.” Ben Smith reports for Politico that Craig

is said to be pushing for a trial and arguing that prosecutors will not be able to win in the vague and untested terrain of campaign-finance law – as he made clear in a defiant statement to reporters Wednesday. Edwards’s longtime friend and lawyer Wade Smith, a fellow veteran of the North Carolina courts, is said to be more inclined to settle. And Edwards himself appears, associates say, to be sorely tempted to take his chances in an arena that made his career and his fortune.

“John needs money. He needs to work, so he can’t give up his law license,” said a source who knows Edwards but who requested anonymity. “He thinks, ‘I get in that courtroom, I get in front of a North Carolina jury…’ “

For the sake of Edwards’ three children under age 18, I would advise him to settle in order to avoid jail time. But I don’t know the legal terrain and have no idea what his chances would be to escape conviction. If conducting an affair during a presidential campaign is any guide, Edwards isn’t risk-averse. Then again, Craig may just be posturing to negotiate a better plea deal for his client.

As far as I know, the money allegedly used to cover up Edwards’ affair came from large donations to his One America Committee (a PAC)–not his 2008 presidential campaign funds. I don’t know whether that makes any difference as a point of law.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: Defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt discusses the case here:

If the U.S. Attorney is demanding a plea to a felony count, I suspect John Edwards will fight. I hope he does. Regardless of your opinion of John Edwards and his personal life, he’s the sole parent now to two young children. Mistreating a donation as a gift (particularly if you relied on the advice of your legal counsel in doing so), when there is a paucity of court decisions defining the difference between them, seems over the top.

If Edwards is offering to plead to a misdemeanor and probation, the Government should grab his proffered ounce of flesh and forego insisting on a pound. The only reason to demand a felony is to justify the cost of the Government’s absurdly lengthy and intrusive investigation.

Jan Crawford reports for CBS News on the arguments underpinning a potential Edwards defense:

Edwards’ legal team argues that the prosecution’s theory is unprecedented and wrong. They say there is only one case involving gifts to federal candidates that’s even remotely comparable — and it not only is distinguishable, but also was merely an advisory opinion by the FEC that never has been cited as authority for a criminal prosecution.

In that case, the FEC said a proposed gift to a federal candidate was illegal because the donor wouldn’t have made it if the candidate weren’t running for office. Edwards, on the other hand, had long-standing personal relationships with donors Fred Baron and Bunny Mellon that continued after he withdrew from the race. In fact, Edwards had lunch with Mellon on Thursday.

The U.S. Senate rejected motions to proceed with considering four draft budgets for the 2012 fiscal year yesterday. Democratic leaders scheduled the vote primarily to get Republicans on the record supporting the budget that passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives last month. That blueprint, also known as Paul Ryan’s budget, foresees big changes to the Medicare program and became a central issue in Tuesday’s special election in New York’s 26th Congressional district.

Senator Chuck Grassley voted for two out of the three Republican proposals on the table, including the Ryan budget, while Senator Tom Harkin voted against all three GOP budgets as well as President Barack Obama’s budget blueprint.

Details on the votes and proposals are after the jump.

Two new reports examine how well Iowa and other states are serving people who travel on foot or by bicycle. Yesterday Transportation for America released Dangerous by Design 2011: Solving the Epidemic of Preventable Pedestrian Deaths. The report looks at factors contributing to 47,700 pedestrian deaths and more than 688,000 pedestrian injuries that happened in the U.S. from 2000 through 2009. Iowa didn’t emerge as one of the most dangerous states for pedestrians, but our state did conform to national trends showing ethnic minorities, lower-income residents, senior citizens and children are at greater risk of dying as pedestrians struck by vehicles.

Iowa placed sixth on the League of American Bicyclists 2011 Bicycle Friendly States rankings, but our state scored much better in some categories than others. Falling short in a couple of areas cost Iowa the “silver” or “bronze” recognition that several other states received.

Follow me after the jump for details from both reports and many other transportation links, including an update on passenger rail funding in Iowa.

Governor Terry Branstad seems to have thrown in the towel on his plan to replace Iowa’s universal voluntary preschool program for four-year-olds, judging from comments he made at town hall meetings today:

The budget impasse has dragged on so long Republican Gov. Terry Branstad doubts it will be possible to implement his plan for restructuring voluntary preschool for Iowa 4-year-olds in the 2011-12 school year.

“At this point in time, I think that’s unlikely to happen,” Branstad said May 24 about his plans to implement a need-based scholarship system that would require all parents to pay at least part of the cost of sending their children to preschool. Parents with higher incomes would pick up a larger share of the cost under his plan.

That was greeted with applause at a Branstad town hall meeting in Elkader and at another in Oelwein Tuesday afternoon.

However, Branstad and House Republicans have not agreed to fund the preschool program, projected to cost about $70 million in the 2012 fiscal year. Lonna Powers, director of a preschool in Oelwein, told Branstad and Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds that “it’s questionable whether I can hire certified staff and whether families can afford to send their children” during the coming school year without state funding.

The Republican-controlled Iowa House voted in January to repeal the voluntary preschool program for four-year-olds, but the Democratic-controlled Senate stripped that section out of a major “deappropriations” bill. The House again voted to scale back preschool spending in March, but the Senate did not act on that legislation (House File 535).

Education spending has emerged as the biggest obstacle to a broad budget agreement between House leaders and the governor on the one hand and Senate leaders on the other. Democrats contend that with Iowa projected to have approximately $1 billion in various surplus accounts as of June 30, the state can easily afford the $65 million it would cost to fund 2 percent allowable growth for K-12 school budgets in fiscal year 2012. Democrats also say the governor’s proposed cuts in state funding to public universities, private and community colleges are “severe and unnecessary.” Republicans insist on a general fund budget below $6 billion in fiscal year 2012, which would require some cuts in education spending. After the jump I’ve posted the Senate Democrats’ list of 10 budget areas on which they demand some compromise from Branstad. The top five are all connected to education.

This week the budget negotiations have become more productive, according to Branstad and House Speaker Kraig Paulsen. Notably, I haven’t seen such optimistic comments from leading Senate Democrats. Branstad expects a budget agreement by the first week of June, but if that doesn’t materialize he will stay in Des Moines, sending Reynolds on an Asian trade mission he is scheduled to lead next month.  

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland announced yesterday that the organization and Planned Parenthood of Southeast Iowa “have signed a letter of intent to merge into one affiliate by June 30, 2011.” Founded in 1964, Planned Parenthood of Southeast Iowa currently serves residents in seven counties through clinics in Burlington, Fort Madison, Keokuk, Mount Pleasant, and Washington. The merged organization will be called Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and will serve women and men in “twenty-five health centers in Iowa, four health centers in Nebraska and three Education Resource Centers in Des Moines, Lincoln and Omaha.” After the jump I’ve posted the full press release announcing the merger plans.

Once the merger is complete, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland will be the only Planned Parenthood affiliate in Iowa, serving residents across the state. In 2009, the largest Iowa affiliate (then called Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa) merged with Planned Parenthood of Nebraska and Council Bluffs to form Planned Parenthood of the Heartland.

Last December, Planned Parenthood of East Central Iowa signed a letter of intent to merge with Planned Parenthood of the Heartland. That merger is now complete. Planned Parenthood of East Central Iowa was founded in Cedar Rapids in 1980 and had served a five-county area (Linn, Jones, Jackson, Dubuque and Delaware) since 1990.

After a slow start, the Republican presidential campaign is ratcheting up in Iowa. Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty formally announced his candidacy in Des Moines today. Over the weekend former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain made his campaign official too.

Arguably the biggest news of the past few days was Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels ruling out a campaign. Many Republican insiders had hoped he would beef up the weak declared field against President Barack Obama.

Links, quotes, and analysis are after the jump.

Three weeks have passed since the Iowa legislature was supposed to adjourn for the year, and Democratic Senate leaders are nowhere near a final deal with Republican House leaders or Governor Terry Branstad. It’s common for the endgame at the statehouse to take a few extra days, but I had expected more progress toward a grand budget compromise by now. Democrats want at least some allowable growth for school budgets, but Republicans insist Iowa can’t afford any increase–despite the fact that state surpluses at the end of the current fiscal year will be larger than projected.

Some compromise will have to be found over the next six weeks to avoid huge problems when the 2012 fiscal year begins on July 1. A detailed post on disputes over the state budget is in progress, but for now feel free to do some scenario spinning in the comments.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

It’s a great time to get out and enjoy nature in Iowa, especially if you like wildflowers. Bluebells are mostly done for the year, but there are still a few spring beauties around. Columbine, mayapples (umbrella plants) and Virginia waterleaf are among the wildflowers hitting their stride right now. We recently discovered some big patches of wild ginger blooming too.

Yesterday Senator Chuck Grassley and almost all his Senate Republican colleagues blocked a motion to end debate on the nomination of Goodwin Liu for the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (roll call). Tom Harkin and all but one Senate Democrat voted for the cloture motion. A 40-year-old law professor at the University of California in Berkeley, Liu had strong academic and legal credentials. Conservatives opposed his liberal policy views as well as his criticism of President George W. Bush’s Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. During his confirmation hearing in March, Liu said the conclusion of his 2006 testimony against Alito showed “poor judgment.”

Liu would have been the only Asian-American on the 9th Circuit panel, which covers territory where more 40 percent of Asian-Americans live. Some observers have suggested that Republicans wanted to keep Liu off the appeals bench to prevent him from being a future U.S. Supreme Court nominee. (Similar concerns were raised about Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor when President Bill Clinton nominated her for an appeals court judgeship in the 1990s.) President Barack Obama has drawn criticism for the “slow pace” of his judicial nominations, but he had nominated Liu three times for this post.

Liu was the second high-profile Obama appointee filibustered this month. On May 9, Grassley and most of his Senate Republican colleagues blocked a motion to end debate on the nomination of James Cole for deputy attorney general. The president had nominated Cole for the position in May 2010, naming him as one of six recess appointees in December after Republicans long delayed considering his nomination.

Cole has extensive experience in private practice and in various Justice Department positions. He is best known for being the House Ethics Committee special counsel who investigated then Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997. Gingrich ultimately paid a $300,000 fine for breaking House ethics rules; Cole discussed that investigation at length in this 1997 interview.

Grassley didn’t mention the Gingrich investigation in his lengthy prepared floor statement opposing Cole’s nomination. Grassley cited the Justice Department’s failure to cooperate with investigations into whistleblower allegations, as well as a 2002 op-ed piece Cole wrote advocating criminal trials in U.S. civilian courts rather than military tribunals for terrorism suspects. Finally, Grassley criticized Cole’s work as an independent consultant hired in 2004 to monitor the insurance giant AIG’s compliance with a securities fraud settlement.

The least convincing part of Grassley’s statement on Cole was this: “I have been consistent in my opposition to recess appointments over the years.” Trouble is, President George W. Bush “made 171 recess appointments, of which 99 were to full-time positions.” I do not recall Grassley filibustering a Bush nominee for any position.

Grassley may have been especially upset by Obama’s December 2010 batch of recess appointees because they included Norm Eisen for U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic. The U.S. had been without an ambassador to that country for two years, and Grassley was the lone senator holding up Eisen’s nomination. He “accused Eisen of improperly firing an inspector general for partisan political reasons”; Eisen denied that claim. In January, Grassley and House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darrell Issa wrote to White House Counsel Bob Bauer, calling Eisen’s appointment “particularly inappropriate.”

UPDATE: After the jump I’ve added Grassley’s official statements on the Goodwin Liu nomination and the failed cloture vote. I also added the full prepared floor statement from Grassley on May 18, explaining his reasons for opposing Liu. These prepared remarks do not include statements Grassley made on the Senate floor that day, asking rhetorically whether Liu thinks “we’re the communist-run China.” Speaking in the chamber, Grassley suggested that by discussing how conservatives use terms like  “free enterprise” and “private ownership of property” as code words, Liu was implying that “if you get government more involved, like they do in China, it’s somehow a better place.”

Donald Trump’s decision not to run for president put the Republican Party of Iowa in an awkward position, because he was supposed to keynote the party’s June 10 Lincoln dinner fundraiser. While Iowa GOP officials waited to hear whether Trump would keep his promise, even WHO television reporter Dave Price (a favorite among conservatives) couldn’t get a call back seeking comment. The state party finally got the bad news today and released this statement:

Earlier today the Iowa GOP was informed that Mr. Trump will not attend and keynote the June 10 Lincoln Dinner. Citing Mr. Trump’s unique appeal and the close proximity to the event, the Iowa GOP has decided to cancel the 2011 Lincoln Dinner.

Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn issued the comment below following Mr. Trump’s decision to cancel his appearance at the Lincoln Dinner.

“In Iowa, your word is your bond. We are disappointed that Mr. Trump has chosen not to honor his commitment to Iowa Republicans.”

I know three weeks isn’t a lot of time, but I’m surprised party leaders couldn’t find some other well-known Republican to step up at the last minute. The Iowa GOP probably has already incurred printing and other expenses related to renting the Polk County Convention Complex for the event. Now money collected for record ticket sales will have to be refunded.

Maybe Iowa Republicans are better off not hitching their wagon to that horse, though. People with an unfavorable view of Trump greatly outnumber those who view him favorably, according to several recent national polls.

UPDATE: How bizarre.

On Friday, apparently stung by criticism from the spurned Iowans, Trump offered to travel to Iowa and speak if the Republicans would change their minds and hold the dinner.

“I promise you that my speech will be fantastic. My word is my bond,” he wrote to Matt Strawn, chairman of the Iowa Republican Party. […]

The state party’s response was essentially thanks, but no thanks. […]

“Iowa Republicans have moved on,” is all party spokesman Casey Mills had to say Friday afternoon.

A Trump aide released a copy of the letter, in which the tycoon said he had thought it would be inappropriate for him to give the speech once he decided not to run for president.

“I truly believe that this honor should be given to one of the other candidates or potential candidates, who could use this invaluable opportunity to get their word out,” he wrote. “I was very surprised and saddened to read that you canceled the event, and hence, called you immediately to let you know that if you wanted me to be there, I would be ready, willing and able.”