President Barack Obama announced the “framework” for his unilateral surrender betrayal of core principles deal with Republicans on extending the Bush tax cuts today. It’s worse than I expected, which is saying something. Republicans get tax cuts for all income levels extended for two full years (we’re supposed to believe Obama will stand up for letting them expire during a presidential election year). They agreed to extend some unemployment benefits, but only for 13 months. Although long-term unemployment is at historically high levels, the “99-ers” (people who have exhausted 99 weeks of unemployment benefits) will get nothing out of this framework. To sweeten the deal for Republicans, the estate tax will be reduced to 35 percent, and it will apply only to estates exceeding $5 million in assets. That’s very costly and not at all stimulative. To provide more disposable income for working people, the payroll tax on employees will be cut by two percentage points for a year. That’s good as long as it doesn’t become an excuse later to cut Social Security benefits. UPDATE: David Dayen reports that a senior administration official told him the payroll tax cut “would be paid for out of general revenue through a credit, and so would not impact Social Security and Medicare finances in any way.”

It astounds me that Obama could think he will gain politically from this bargain. How many videos like this one are floating around? October 30, 2008: “Why would we keep driving down this dead-end street? […] At a moment like this, the last thing we can afford is four more years of the tired old economic theory that says we should give more and more to billionaires and corporations and hope that prosperity trickles down on everybody else.”

After the jump I’ve posted some Iowa politicians’ reactions to the deal. I’ll update as more statements become available.

UPDATE: Late on Tuesday afternoon, the offices of Representatives Bruce Braley (D, IA-01), Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03) have not responded to my requests for comment on the tax deal. How hard is it to express an opinion about the major decision of the lame-duck session? U.S. Senate conservadem Mary Landrieu of all people came out guns blazing today against the “moral corruptness” of the deal.

Iowa’s three-member Revenue Estimating Conference again raised projections for state revenues during the current fiscal year and fiscal year 2012, following another month of growing state tax collections in November. The news hasn’t deterred Republican leaders from planning mid-year budget cuts, and legislators from both parties acknowledged the end of federal stimulus funds will make the next budget year difficult. Details and proposals are after the jump.

Iowa Democrats will compete in 2012 with the same leaders who ran this year’s election program. On Saturday, the Iowa Democratic Party’s State Central Committee re-elected all five officers for the next two-year cycle: party chair Sue Dvorsky, first vice chair Michael Kiernan, second vice chair Chris Petersen, treasurer Ken Sagar and secretary Dori Rammelsberg-Dvorak. Last month, the Iowa Senate Democratic caucus re-elected Mike Gronstal as majority leader, and Iowa House Democrats chose Kevin McCarthy as minority leader. McCarthy has been majority leader and right-hand man to outgoing House Speaker Pat Murphy for the previous two election cycles.

Some might expect a few changes at the top after Iowa Democrats suffered their worst election defeats since 1994. In a December 4 statement, Dvorsky promised to “build on the lessons learned in the last election to grow the Iowa Democratic Party and advance Democratic values across the state.”

John Deeth mentions that the IDP’s field program won “national praise” (in the form of one line by Marc Ambinder). I find it hard to see how anyone can view this year’s coordinated campaign as a success. Granted, it was a tough year for Democrats in most parts of the country. Yes, a million dollars from out-of-state turned out the vote against the Iowa Supreme Court justices, which surely helped Republican candidates. Yes, Democrats were unlucky GOP power-brokers talked Terry Branstad out of retirement. If not for that, Bob Vander Plaats would have been the Republican gubernatorial nominee, Chet Culver might be gearing up for his second term, and Democrats might have held more legislative districts.

Still, we lost every competitive Iowa Senate seat plus one few people had their eyes on. We saved a few targeted Iowa House seats but suffered a net loss of 16 in the chamber, worse than almost every Democrat’s worst-case scenario before the election. We lost state House and Senate seats in every Congressional district. Even in a bad year, we should have been able to contain the losses at a lower level. Democrats have almost no margin of error for holding the Iowa Senate in 2012, and it will take at least a few cycles to get the Iowa House back.  

I don’t have the data to know whether the field program was targeting the wrong voters, not enough voters, using the wrong methods to reach voters, or just suffered from a lack of funds to execute the plan. Many of our candidates lost despite working hard and exceeding their early vote targets. The direct mail for Iowa House and Senate candidates seems to have been largely ineffective, and the television commercials (at least the ones I saw) didn’t make any case for re-electing our incumbents.

All Iowa Democrats in Congress won re-election, but can that be attributed to the IDP’s field program? Turnout compared to 2006 wasn’t up by much in the key Democratic counties in the first district, for instance. I think Democrats were lucky that the GOP’s best Congressional challenger was in the most Democratic-leaning seat. Otherwise, we could easily have lost IA-01 and/or IA-03.  

I’m not saying this is all Dvorsky’s fault, or that electing new party leaders would fix the problem. One way or another, the IDP needs to have a much better field operation in 2012. It’s dangerous to assume performance will automatically improve because more voters participate in presidential elections. The economy could (probably will) remain weak, and there’s no way Barack Obama’s campaign will generate as much excitement as it did in 2008.

Speaking of the Obama campaign, I assume his Iowa staff will take over the coordinated GOTV efforts, as they did in 2008. That didn’t work out too well for our statehouse candidates. Even Obama’s Iowa director Jackie Norris admitted that more could have been done for the down-ballot candidates. The president’s re-election team will work to maximize turnout in heavily Democratic precincts, which in most cases are not part of battleground Iowa House and Senate districts.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

My seven-year-old’s class was asked to write a haiku about any topic. This is what he brought home from school:

Haikus can be hard.

Haikus go five seven five.

Haikus need practice.

I love it. The kid didn’t even know that I am fond of fun haiku.

This is an open thread for anything on your mind this weekend. If anyone wants to pick up the meta ball and blog about blogging, I would particularly appreciate your suggestions about ways Bleeding Heartland could be improved during the coming year: content, design, layout, features.

Republican filibusters on Saturday blocked two U.S. Senate attempts to vote on extending Bush tax cuts for all but the highest income levels. The first cloture attempt related to an amendment to permanently extend all tax cuts affecting the first $200,000 of income for individuals or $250,000 for families. It also would have extended unemployment benefits. It needed 60 votes to pass but received 53 yes votes and 36 no votes (roll call). Iowa’s Chuck Grassley joined all Republicans present and a handful of conservative Democrats to block this measure. All 11 senators who didn’t vote were Republicans. Perhaps they didn’t want to go on record voting against tax cuts.

The second cloture motion related to Senator Chuck Schumer’s amendment, which would have extended Bush tax cuts for all incomes below $1,000,000. The idea was to force Republicans to show that they would defend millionaires’ interests even if doing so torpedoed tax cuts for everyone else. But many Democrats objected to Schumer’s plan, because it would cost $400 billion over ten years and would tacitly redefine earners up to $1,000,000 per year as middle-class. The vote was 53-37, with 60 yes votes needed to invoke cloture. Iowa’s Tom Harkin was among the small group of Democrats who voted no, as did Grassley and the rest of the Republicans.

A deal that would have allowed votes today on two Republican-proposed amendments, extending all the Bush tax cuts permanently or for a limited time, “fell apart when a Republican objected to it at the last minute, leaving a surprised and embarrassed Mitch McConnell at the table empty-handed.” Click through for David Waldman’s explanation of the procedural issues and why a Republican would want to prevent those votes from happening during the lame-duck session.

Joan McCarter posted a revealing exchange between Schumer and Grassley during today’s Senate debate:

   Mr. Schumer: I thank my colleague. And through the chair, I’d simply like to ask my colleague this. I understand we have a different point of view here. We both care about deficit reduction. Could he please explain to me why it is okay to take $300 billion of tax cuts for those at the highest income levels, above a million, and not pay for it and yet we have to pay for unemployment insurance ex extension?

   Mr. Grassley: I thought I made that point very clear, because the taxpayers are smarter than we in Congress are. They know that they give another dollar to us to spend and it’s a license to spend $1.15. So it just increases the national debt. And when it comes to paying for unemployment compensation, we can pay for unemployment compensation because the stimulus bill was supposed to stimulate the economy and it’s not being spent. And if you put money from stimulus into unemployment, you don’t increase the deficit and you’ll also have the money spent right away.  

   Mr. Schumer: I would just say that the answer doesn’t deal with deficit reduction. If you care about deficit reduction, the two should be treated equally. A dollar of tax break for millionaire and a dollar of increased unemployment benefits increases the deficit the same amount. However, every economist — I saw we had a chart up about economists before — will tell you that a dollar into unemployment benefits stimulates the economy about four times as much as a dollar into tax decreases for millionaires. That’s pretty universal. Mark Zandy, John McCain’s economic advisor during his campaign, said that a dollar of tax breaks for millionaires stimulates the economy about 30 cents worth. A dollar of tax — a dollar of unemployment benefits increases the economy by about $1.62.

Grassley and the rest of the Republicans should stop pretending to care about the deficit.

If I were Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, I would ignore whatever deal President Obama is working out with Republicans and refuse to schedule a vote on extending all the Bush tax cuts. Republicans had their chance to keep lower tax rates for everyone on their first $250,000 of income, but they said no.

Interested in many political issues, this is my first diary here. I publish previously this bid for redistricting Iowa in SwingStateProject, and desmoinesdem tell me for publish it here. Then, I'm here. I hope the people find it interesting.

Sorry if you see some mistake writing, but I'm not a native speaker.

The best luck for the democrats from Iowa 🙂

The Bureau of Labor Statistics report on U.S. employment in November 2009 was much worse than expected: the unemployment rate went up from 9.6 percent to 9.8 percent as total nonfarm payroll employment increased by only 39,000. The Calculated Risk blog posted ugly graphs here and here. The U.S. economy needs to add about 140,000 jobs per month just to keep up with population growth. The unemployment rate won’t start dropping until the economy is adding close to 200,000 jobs per month, and it’s hard to see how that will happen.

Interest rates are already extremely low, and “quantitative easing” by the Federal Reserve probably won’t stimulate huge new demand.

Spending from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is winding down, and Congress won’t approve any significant new money for infrastructure. Members of Congress can call employer tax breaks “stimulus,” but businesses won’t start hiring until they expect or experience more demands for the goods or services they sell.

The number of long-term unemployed remains at the highest level in decades. Republicans are holding an extension of unemployment benefits hostage to continuing all the Bush tax cuts, which won’t create jobs. Even if benefits are extended for some of the long-term unemployed, it won’t help the “99ers,” who have received the maximum 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.

A payroll tax holiday could permanently weaken the Social Security system.

It all adds up to high unemployment for the forseeable future.  

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

P.S.- Some people are way too confident that Barack Obama will be re-elected. Ronald Reagan presided over a higher spike in unemployment in 1982, but by 1984 the economy was booming. That is unlikely to be the case by 2012. A 10 percent unemployment rate nationally means even higher jobless rates in many states Obama would need to win (Nevada, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or Florida). Even if Republicans nominate a bad candidate, like Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin, Obama would not coast.

Vote-counting and recounting ended in Iowa last week, and although one U.S. House race remains unresolved, I’m going ahead with the results from this year’s Bleeding Heartland election prediction contest.

Winners for each of the 20 questions are after the jump.

The House of Representatives voted today to extend the Bush tax cuts affecting individuals earning less than $200,000 annually and families earning less than $250,000. The vote was 234 to 188, mostly along party lines. Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell all voted for the bill, while Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King voted against it. If you click on the roll call, you might notice the vote was on a “Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment” to the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III. Adding the tax cut language to this vehicle, instead of introducing a new bill, was done to deny Republicans the chance to make a motion to recommit and attach the rest of the Bush tax cuts. David Waldman walks you through the House procedural weeds.

Only three House Republicans voted for this bill, which would permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for 98 percent of filers. Every recent poll shows a minority want to extend the tax cuts for the top income levels. It’s disgusting that Republicans can’t accept even this bill, which gives more money back to wealthier people anyway.

The White House response to today’s vote was even more disgraceful:

“The President continues to believe that extending middle class tax cuts is the most important thing we can do for our economy right now and he applauds the House for passing a permanent extension.  But, because Republicans have made it clear that they won’t pass a middle class extension without also extending tax cuts for the wealthy, the President has asked Director Lew and Secretary Geithner to work with Congress to find a way forward.  Those discussions started just yesterday and are continuing this afternoon.  The talks are ongoing and productive, but any reports that we are near a deal in the tax cuts negotiations are inaccurate and premature.”

Who still believes that Barack Obama wants to win this battle? He isn’t even trying. I wonder if he’s been planning to cave on this issue all along.

Meanwhile, the House passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 today by a vote of 264 to 157. All Iowa Democrats voted yes, as did Latham (one of just 17 Republicans to cross the aisle on this issue). King voted no, along with most of the Republican caucus. The Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent in August. It would improve the school lunch program and fund other child nutrition programs, but unfortunately food stamp funding was used to cover part of the cost. Senator Tom Harkin’s office summarized the bill’s provisions, and I’ve posted that statement after the jump. Referring to the food stamp funding, Harkin states, “President Obama, however, has committed to work with Congress to replace this offset before these SNAP [food stamp] cuts take place in November 2013.” I wouldn’t count on the president keeping that promise in light of today’s White House statement on tax cuts.

UPDATE: Senator Tom Harkin said on December 2 that if Obama caves on the Bush tax cuts, “He would then just be hoping and praying that Sarah Palin gets the nomination.”

Debi Durham’s appointment as economic development leader was the big news of the week from Governor-elect Terry Branstad’s camp, but he and his close advisers continue to lay the groundwork for his administration.

After the jump I catch up on stories about the state budget, inauguration plans, and top Branstad donors from the past year.

A special nominating convention on December 1 chose Ruth Smith as the Democratic candidate for the January 4 special election in Iowa Senate district 48. Smith was the Democratic nominee in this district in 2008, losing to Kim Reynolds by 53 percent to 43 percent. Reynolds vacated the seat after being elected lieutenant governor.

After the jump I’ve posted biographical information on Smith from her campaign website. She’s a Lamoni native and current resident who works as a physical therapist in several southern Iowa counties. Her issues page focuses on health care, education, farming, small business and industrial policies.

Senate district 48 covers Adams, Clarke, Decatur, Montgomery, Ringgold, Taylor and Union counties. As of November 1, the district contained 10,444 registered Democrats, 15,257 Republicans and 14,306 no-party voters. Republicans have nominated Montgomery County Auditor Joni Ernst for the special election.

Happy Chanukah to those in the Bleeding Heartland community who observe the holiday. Members of the desmoinesdem family who are not eagerly putting together their new Lego set are enjoying Chanukah music. After our candles burn down we’re heading to the “Chanukah on Ice” event Chabad is putting on tonight at the Brenton Skating Plaza in Des Moines.

I consider the holiday season the best time of year to be Jewish, because there are a lot of fun Chanukah traditions, but no pressure to bake, decorate, etc.

Favorite Chanukah parenting tip: buy an extra box of candles. Kids love to help putting candles in the menorah, and they will break some.

This is an open thread. What’s on your mind?

UPDATE: Former Representative Stephen Solarz of New York died this week at the age of 70. I remember seeing him during an Iowa visit sometime during the 1980s. At that time, he was a rising star in the Democratic Party. He may even have visited my precinct caucus in 1988–I can’t recall exactly when he was here. The New York Times obituary and this article by Steve Kornacki on the complicated relationship between Solarz and Chuck Schumer are worth reading.

For a smart guy, President Barack Obama has surprisingly poor bargaining skills. Putting lots of tax cuts in the too-small stimulus without insisting on Republican concessions made the Recovery Act less stimulative but failed to win bipartisan support for it. Expanding off-shore oil drilling without gaining anything concrete from Republicans did nothing to advance a comprehensive energy bill.

Despite those failures, Obama still seems unable to start negotiations from a position of strength. To set the tone for his first post-election meeting with Congressional Republican leaders, the president announced a new policy designed to appeal to conservatives, with no strings attached. During yesterday’s meeting, he even apologized to top Republicans for not reaching out to them more.

Naturally, Republicans haven’t made any policy gestures toward the president this week, nor have they apologized for not working constructively with him.

Millions of Americans will pay the price for Obama’s inability to grasp basic negotiating tactics.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack submitted a video this week to the It Gets Better Project “because he wants LGBT youth – especially youth in small-town and rural America – to know that they are never alone.” The “It Gets Better” Project grew out of syndicated columnist Dan Savage’s reaction to several suicides this year by teenagers who were bullied for being gay or being perceived to be gay. The project’s mission is to help LGBT youth “imagine a future for themselves.”

I posted Vilsack’s video after the jump. Excerpts (my transcription):

I’ve been made fun of for being different. Growing up, I was chubby and I was teased for being overweight. […]

Today, if you’ve been bullied, I want to let you know that it gets better. I know that it can be particularly hard as an LGBT youth in a small community or in a rural town. You might never have known an openly gay adult. But know that in rural America, there are thousands of gay adults and teens leading normal, happy lives.

The USDA also provided these links and resources for young people who have been bullied or harassed.

As Iowa governor, Vilsack was a strong supporter of anti-bullying policies. The Iowa Civil Rights Commission created the GLBT Youth in Iowa Schools Task Force in 2002. Vilsack publicly supported that commission’s work, but Republicans lawmakers repeatedly blocked legislation to address bullying in schools. Under Democratic control, the Iowa House and Senate passed an anti-bullying law during the first year of Chet Culver’s administration.

The U.S. Senate approved the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act today by a 73 to 25 vote. Tom Harkin and all other Senate Democrats voted for the bill, as did 15 Republicans including Iowa’s Chuck Grassley. Grassley also was among 14 Republicans who joined Democrats to support the cloture motion ending debate on the food safety bill yesterday.

Some details on the bill as well as its complicated path through the Senate are after the jump.  

Governor-elect Terry Branstad today put Debi Durham in charge of job creation for his administration. She will start as head of the Iowa Department of Economic Development, which Branstad plans to convert into a public-private partnership. Durham’s work will be crucial for some of Branstad’s central campaign promises: creating 200,000 new jobs, increasing family incomes by 25 percent, and reviewing all state economic development programs to discard ones that don’t work. Branstad has said he will travel widely to sell Iowa to the business community, and Durham will be a partner in those marketing efforts.

Durham has worked for the Siouxland Chamber of Commerce for 17 years, and “chairs the board of the Iowa Chamber Alliance, a coalition representing the chambers of commerce in the state’s 17 largest metro areas.” She told reporters that leaving Sioux City was a hard choice. Outside economic development circles, she is best known as the Republican nominee for lieutenant governor in 2002, the year Doug Gross lost to Governor Tom Vilsack. Bret Hayworth wrote a good profile of her during the 2002 campaign. Incidentally, Gross also intended to remake IDED into a public-private partnership. Yet again, Branstad is following his former chief of staff’s playbook. David Roederer, who also headed Branstad’s staff in the past and will run the Department of Management in the new administration, has worked closely with Durham too. He was executive director of the Iowa Chamber Alliance during her time as board chair.

During this year’s campaign, Governor Chet Culver said IDED already has plenty of business input and has helped keep Iowa’s unemployment far below the national average. He also cited news reports showing that the Indiana Economic Development Corporation, which Branstad embraced as a model, touted “bogus” job creation claims and concealed information about tax credits some companies received. Iowa legislators should ensure that the revamped IDED doesn’t have similar transparency problems. Branstad can’t restructure economic development programs by government directive; he needs a new state law for that.

Culver appointed Durham to the Iowa Department of Transportation Commission and “spoke highly” of her during the September gubernatorial debate in Sioux City. Assuming the Iowa Senate confirms Durham (which should be no problem), she may need to give up her position on the transportation commission. If so, expect Branstad to appoint someone friendly to road-builders’ interests.

In related news, Branstad is raising money from private donors to help pay for the transition from Chet Culver’s administration to his own. Current Iowa law set aside only $10,000, clearly not enough to cover those costs. I look forward to seeing the list of donors. People looking to preserve certain business tax breaks or economic development incentives may be eager to help the new administration.

UPDATE: From Jason Clayworth’s blog at the Des Moines Register:

“Obviously when you hear private/public partnership that is the biggest question is the transparency,” Durham said. “What I can assure you and I’m going to take my lead from Gov. Branstad. Everything about Gov. Branstad and this administration is transparent  So anything that will have anything to do with any public funds or public funding will certainly meet that threshold of transparency.

One of Branstad’s key campaign promises is to create 200,000 jobs throughout the next five years. Durham acknowledged after today’s press conference that the goal is a tall order.

“I think it is a stretch goal but like I said will go to work every single day knowing that is the goal before us,” Durham said.

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement criticized Branstad’s appointment of Durham today. Their statement is after the jump.

The Iowa State Board of Canvassers certified the statewide results of this month’s general election today. From Secretary of State Michael Mauro’s press release:

In total, 1,133,434 Iowans voted in the 2010 General Election. This accounted for a turnout of 54-percent and was the highest number of total voters participating in a midterm election in state history.

The official canvass results, including the winner’s list, can be found by visiting www.IowaVotes.gov and clicking on the link under “Election Results” or by clicking on the direct link: www.sos.state.ia.us/elections/results/index.html#9

Statewide, 68,296 more voters cast ballots in this year’s general election than in 2006 (a 6.4 percent increase in the number of voters). The growth in participation varied widely by county. I spent some time today comparing the 2006 turnout report by county with the county numbers from this year (pdf files). Some numbers that caught my eye are after the jump.

Catching up on pre-Thanksgiving news, recounts concluded on November 24 in the two Iowa Senate districts decided by extremely narrow margins. Republican Andrew Naeve conceded to Tod Bowman, who won the open Senate district 13 by 70 votes out of nearly 20,000 cast. Naeve netted only one vote during the recount. Democrats have a almost a two to one voter registration edge in this Senate district (pdf file), so it shouldn’t have been close even in a Republican wave year. The GOP also managed to win House district 25, which makes up half of Senate district 13, after convincing one of Bowman’s unsuccessful Democratic primary rivals to run for the House as a Republican.

Democratic incumbent Keith Kreiman conceded to Mark Chelgren on November 24 after a recount in Senate district 47 failed to change Chelgren’s 12-vote lead out of just over 19,000 cast. Kreiman had served two terms in the Iowa Senate and five terms in the Iowa House before that. Democrats have a voter registration advantage in Kreiman’s district, though not as large as in Senate district 13. Kreiman underperformed House Democratic incumbents Mary Gaskill (district 93) and Kurt Swaim (district 94), whose each represent half of his Senate district.

Democrats will be hoping that the redistricting puts Chelgren on the ballot in 2012, rather than after a full four-year term. Most even-numbered years, half of the 50 seats in the chamber are up for grabs, but in the first election after a new map is adopted, some “extra” races take place in Senate districts containing zero or more than one incumbent.

With Senate districts 13 and 47 now resolved, Iowa Democrats are assured of holding at least 26 seats in the upper chamber. Republicans hold 23 seats and are favored to win the January 4 special election in Senate district 48.

Longtime Iowa GOP political operative Gentry Collins has formed a campaign organization to back his likely bid for Republican National Committee chairman this January. If elected, he would be the fifth leader of the national GOP from Iowa and the first since pro-choice moderate Mary Louise Smith chaired the RNC in the mid-1970s.

Collins’ resignation letter as RNC political director probably buried Michael Steele’s already faint hope of being re-elected for another two-year term as party leader. Several factors are likely to count against Collins when the 168 RNC members consider the possible successors to Steele, though.

Time with extended family means less time for blogging, so I’m posting the weekend open thread early. Here are some links to get the conversation going.

Rural voters were a crucial factor helping Republicans retake the U.S. House. Of the 125 most rural Congressional districts, Republicans held all 64 seats they had going into the election and flipped 39 Democratic districts (that alone would have been enough to give them a majority). Going into the election, Democrats held 61 of the 125 most rural Congressional districts. Now they hold only 22 of those districts, including IA-01 (Bruce Braley) and IA-02 (Dave Loebsack).

Smart Politics looked at what it calls “Iowa’s Schizophrenic 2010 Electorate” and observed, “Never before in the history of Iowa elections have Republicans won a majority of seats in the Iowa House while Democrats won a majority of the Hawkeye State’s U.S. House seats.”

I listed the Iowa House and Senate Democrats before and after the election, grouped by Congressional district. Bleeding Heartland user American007 created red and blue Iowa maps showing which parties held state House and Senate districts before the election and after.

Fred Karger, a Republican political strategist and gay activist who’s exploring a presidential bid, has been running this commercial on the Fox network this week in Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Quad Cities, Mason City, Ames, Burlington and Fort Dodge. Have you seen it? Hard to imagine a strong base of support for Karger in Iowa, but I’m glad a moderate may be running for president on the Republican side.

If Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels runs for president in 2012, some Iowa Republicans will not forgive him for supporting merit-based judicial selection in his state.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said all the “right” things about Iowa judges during his recent Des Moines visit. But this week Huckabee described the controversial searches of airline passengers as a “humiliating and degrading, totally unconstitutional, intrusion of their privacy.” Uh oh! Social conservatives don’t typically acknowledge that there is a constitutional right to privacy. That dreaded “penumbra” underlies U.S. Supreme Court rulings affirming reproductive rights.

I learned this week that New Hampshire has some elected Republican officias who support marriage equality. It’s not clear whether there are enough of them to stop large GOP majorities from repealing same-sex marriage rights in that state. I wonder when (if ever) a current Republican office-holder in Iowa will defend equality.

Iowa First Lady Mari Culver says she accomplished what she set out to do during her husband’s term as governor, and her kids are excited to be moving back to their West Des Moines home full-time.

What’s on your mind this holiday weekend?