Back when George W. Bush was president, Republicans assailed any vote against any military funding bill as not supporting our troops on the battlefield. But the Republican caucus was united yesterday as the Senate voted 56-43 to block debate on this year’s Defense Authorization Act. The bill included a compromise likely to lead to lifting the ban on gays openly serving in the military. Even Republican Susan Collins of Maine, who says she’s for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, stuck with her caucus over complaints about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s restrictions on amendments during debate over the bill. One amendment Reid had planned to allow would have added the DREAM Act to the defense authorization bill. The DREAM Act “would allow undocumented students brought to America as children to earn a path to citizenship through completion of higher education or military service.”

Only two Democrats sided with Republicans to block debate on this bill: Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. (Reid switched his vote to “no” at the last minute for procedural reasons, so he would be able to bring it up again later this year.) Lincoln’s excuse was the same as Collins’: she claimed to be for the DREAM Act and the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell compromise, but was angered by limits on amendments during the debate. Senate procedure is more important to these people than civil rights. At least Lincoln’s going to lose her re-election campaign anyway.

Although President Barack Obama has said he’s for repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, there’s no indication he or other White House officials lifted a finger to influence yesterday’s vote in the Senate. Nor did the president accuse those who blocked debate of undercutting soldiers at war, the way George Bush surely would have done in similar circumstances.

In Iowa, critics of Senator Chuck Grassley reacted quickly to his vote blocking debate on the defense bill. A statement from One Iowa accused him of compromising military readiness:

“Senator Grassley should stop playing politics with our national security,” said One Iowa Executive Director Carolyn Jenison. “Gay and lesbian servicemembers provide additional expertise and skills the military needs. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell compromises the integrity of our armed sources and puts gay servicemembers at risk.”

Although Democratic Senate candidate Roxanne Conlin has long advocated civil equality for gays and lesbians, her campaign strangely sidestepped the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell angle in its statement yesterday:

“This is just one more inexcusable vote from Iowa’s senior Senator,” said Paulee Lipsman, spokesperson for the United States Senate campaign of Roxanne Conlin.  “His action denies a pay raise for the very men and women who are risking their lives for their country in the Middle East.  These families should not have to be on food stamps while a member of their family is off fighting in Afghanistan. Grassley’s vote denies better health care for those who are wounded.  It denies better equipment for those in combat.”

“Over the past two years, Senator Grassley has followed the advice of Senator Jim DeMint that Republicans block everything proposed by the Obama administration.  This partisanship is why Washington is broken.”

Key provisions of the bill include:

·         Authorize an across the board 1.4% pay raise for the military.

·         Improve the quality of life of the men and women of the all-volunteer force (active duty, National Guard and Reserves) and their families through fair pay, policies and benefits, including first rate health care, and address the needs of the wounded, ill, and injured service members and their families.

·         Provide our servicemen and women with the resources, training, technology, equipment (especially force protection) and authorities they need to succeed in combat and stability operations.

·         Enhance the capability of the Armed Forces to conduct counterinsurgency operations and apply the lessons of Iraq to Afghanistan, as appropriate.

I don’t think Grassley was proud of this vote. His Senate office put out several press releases yesterday, but nothing on the Defense Authorization Act.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: During her September 22 meeting with the Sioux City Journal editorial board, Conlin called for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to be overturned:

Closeted gays ably serve in the military today, she said, but cited that 13,000 have left service at a time when the military needs positions filled by well-prepared Americans.

“We are granting waivers to convicted felons and we are throwing out people, experienced West Point graduates. It makes no sense,” Conlin said.

She continued: “It is not as though, right now, gay people are not serving. They are, they’re there, they’re fighting for us, they are dying for us. The only question is – can they do it without living a lie? The answer to that, in the United States of America, has to be ‘yes.’ “

One of the simplest ways to boost electricity production from renewable sources, rather than fossil fuels, would be to adopt a federal renewable electricity standard (RES). About 30 states, including Iowa, already have some form of RES, requiring utilities to produce a certain percentage of electricity from renewable sources. The demise of broad climate change legislation in the U.S. Senate in favor of a pathetically watered-down energy bill appeared to end hopes for the RES in this Congress. However, three Republicans and six Democrats today announced a new bill that, in their view, could gain support from enough senators to break a filibuster:

The RES, from lead co-sponsors Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), hews closely to the standard passed in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last year. Beginning in 2012, utilities will be required to draw 3 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. The percentage scales up to 15 percent by 2021, where it would remain through 2039.

Wind, solar, ocean, geothermal, biomass, new hydropower, and gas drawn from landfills would all qualify as renewable under the standard. States will also be allowed to meet a little more than a quarter of the requirement by improving efficiency at power plants. The definition is expanded somewhat from the version included in a larger energy package that Bingaman’s committee approved in June 2009.

The Bingaman/Brownback proposal is a weaker RES than what the U.S. needs to reduce fossil fuel pollution, but passing it would be better than doing nothing. Kate Sheppard reports that the new bill has six Democratic supporters and three Republicans: Brownback, John Ensign of Nevada, and Susan Collins of Maine.

Senator Chuck Grassley has supported RES legislation in the past, but the Politico’s Josh Voorhees reported today,

Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, who could be in play, also has yet to sign on to the effort. He told reporters last week that while he is a long-time supporter of an RES, he’s unwilling to join Democrats in voting for one unless a healthy number of his GOP colleagues do as well. “I’m not going to be a part of one or two Republicans, get 60 votes, so they can have a partisan victory,” he said in the Capitol.

For the moment let’s forget about the environmental benefits of generating more renewable electricity, and the health benefits of reducing our reliance on coal combustion. Iowa’s economy could benefit tremendously from federal law that requires utilities to invest more in renewables. Not only is Iowa the number two state for wind energy production, we have a growing number of people manufacturing equipment for wind turbines. Iowa also has good potential for solar power.

Grassley would turn his back on a bill that’s good for his constituents and the country as a whole, because he doesn’t want to be among a small group handing Senate Democrats “a partisan victory.”

Small-minded stuff for the senator whose campaign slogan is “Grassley works…for us.”

Iowans can contact Grassley’s offices in Washington (phone 202-224-3744, fax 202-224-6020) or in Des Moines (phone 515-288-1145, fax 515-288-5097) to urge him to co-sponsor the Bingaman/Brownback bill.

Democratic Senate candidate Roxanne Conlin supports a federal RES and other policies to increase renewable energy production.

UPDATE: Grassley confirmed on September 23 that he is co-sponsoring this bill. Good for him.

Secretary of State Michaul Mauro’s campaign announced today that 43 county auditors–31 Democrats, 11 Republicans and one with no party affiliation–have endorsed the Democratic incumbent for re-election. One of the Republicans, Auditor Renee McClellan of Hardin County, said in a statement, “From the first day he took office, Michael Mauro has walked arm-in-arm with county auditors of both political parties and approached his job as Iowa’s commissioner of elections in a non-partisan way, choosing results over politics. I’m proud to support Secretary Mauro and encourage all Iowans to vote for him this fall.”

It’s unusual for partisan county officials to publicly support a statewide candidate from the other party, and Mauro said the endorsements “confirm that my administration has worked effectively with both Democrats and Republicans to make the voting process accessible, safe, and secure.”

No doubt the Republican auditors have noticed that Mauro’s GOP challenger Matt Schultz is ignorant about Iowa election procedures and casually throws around fraud allegations for political gain.

The full list of auditors who support Mauro is after the jump.  

No Republican in Congress has been more vocal about repealing “Obamacare” than Representative Steve King. He has tried to make undoing everything in the health insurance reform law the top priority for Republicans. Speaking to the Spencer Daily Reporter’s Gabe Licht in August, King asserted:

“I think we’ve lurched to the left so hard that we’re nearly off the cliff into the abyss of socialism … We should keep in mind so many things I think should be undone.”

Topping that list for King is what he calls nationalization of health care.

“When I say nationalization, I mean under the ownership, management or control of the federal government,” he said. “Now our skin and everything inside it has been nationalized by ‘Obamacare.’”

That may sound like an extreme interpretation of a law that gave health insurance industry interests almost everything they wanted, but remember, we’re talking about Steve King. He has derided the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (which pays for kids’ medical care but doesn’t dictate where they must receive it) as Socialized Clinton style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents.

Imagine my surprise, then, to see this press release from Representative King’s office a few days ago:

Congressman Steve King has released the following statement in support of the Veterans Affairs Department’s decision to locate a new Veterans’ Community Based Outpatient Clinic at St. Anthony Hospital in Carroll, Iowa.

“The VA has wisely chosen to locate its new VA clinic at St. Anthony Hospital. The Carroll community and the providers, administrators, and staff at St. Anthony have made significant investments in the hospital in recent years, and the veterans who will be making regular visits to the new clinic will be the beneficiaries of many of the improvements that have been made,” said King.

“St. Anthony Hospital has served as an important anchor in the Carroll community for decades, and it makes sense for the VA to turn to it to facilitate the opening of a new clinic to better serve the many veterans who live in the area. In the past few years, I’ve worked with the VA to increase Fifth District veterans’ access to health services through the establishment of new VA clinics in both Spirit Lake and Shenandoah. Setting up this new clinic in Carroll will make it even easier for western Iowa’s veterans to get the care they were promised. It has been a privilege to be part of the process and the credit goes to St. Anthony’s administration and staff. I’m pleased the VA has finally put its stamp of approval on this proposal. Congratulations to our veterans, St. Anthony’s and the Carroll community. I look forward to the ribbon cutting.”

Nothing in the United States resembles socialized medicine as much as the VA. The government runs the veterans’ clinics, employs the doctors and other staff, and uses its bulk purchasing power to reduce some costs. (Medicare is sometimes described as socialized medicine but is actually a single-payer system, in which the government pays for care but doesn’t control the health care providers.) The health insurance reform law King detests didn’t even create a minimal government-run insurance plan, nor did it permit Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices.

I think King is smart enough to understand the inconsistency between welcoming the VA’s expansion in his district and warning that Obamacare has given the government control over “our skin and everything inside it.” It reminds me of how he hailed new funding for Highway 20 in northwest Iowa, hoping no one would notice that he voted against the 2009 stimulus bill which provided those funds. When it’s politically expedient, he’ll get behind “big government” spending and services that will be popular with his constituents.  

Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad is rolling out two new commercials this week to highlight the campaign’s new applications for Droid, Blackberry, iPad and iPhone. I’m not a smart phone user, so others will have to review the applications.

The main thing I learned from the television ads, which I’ve posted below, is that no amount of fact-checking will deter Terry Branstad from lying about the I-JOBS infrastructure bonding program.

UPDATE: The Iowa Democratic Party produced a web video imagining what a Terry Branstad app would really look like. “Nothing says innovation quite like moving backwards.”

Researchers who have studied Iowa’s 2008 floods have shown that certain land use practices contributed to the natural disaster. New floodplain management recommendations from a panel of experts were mostly shelved during the 2010 legislative session. However, the appropriations bill approved just before legislators adjourned in March included some provisions that could improve floodplain management. Section 17 of Senate File 2389 (text) spelled out 10 “Iowa smart planning principles,” which “State agencies, local governments, and other public entities shall consider and may apply […] during deliberation of all appropriate planning, zoning, development, and resource management decisions […].”  Section 25 established an Iowa Smart Planning Task Force to encourage and support the use of such principles. By November 15, that 33-member task force must submit policy recommendations to the governor and state legislature.

Iowans have a rare opportunity to support wise land use policies by speaking out on the task force’s draft recommendations, which cover five broad areas:

Establish a framework to coordinate planning, geographic information and data systems, and state-level investment.

Require completion of regional comprehensive smart plans within 5 years after legislation is enacted.

Create financial incentives and offer technical assistance to incent smart planning at both the regional and local levels.

Develop a watershed planning and coordination program, including goals and strategies referencing land use for each of Iowa’s nine major river basins.

Make the definition of “local comprehensive plan” uniform throughout the Iowa Code.

The task force is accepting public comments through October 10. Click here to download the full draft recommendations (pdf file). This survey at the Rebuild Iowa Office website asks whether you support, oppose or are neutral to each specific recommendation, and leaves blank space for suggesting anything that should be added or deleted from the document. Surveys can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to Aaron Todd at the Rebuild Iowa Office. His contact information is here.

The smart planning recommendations will be discussed at five public meetings and one webinar between September 28 and October 7. I’ve posted event details for the meetings in Spencer, Red Oak, Waverly, Coralville, and Boone below. You do not need to attend a public meeting or sign on to the webinar in order to submit comments.

Increased precipitation is expected to lead to more major flooding in Iowa in the coming decades. Terry Branstad dropped the ball on flood prevention during the 1990s. Although I-JOBS has funded many valuable flood mitigation projects, those are not a substitute for more comprehensive and coordinated land use planning.

After the jump you’ll find an action alert from 1000 Friends of Iowa, containing the times and locations for the public meetings and webinar. I’ve also posted the suggestions that 1000 Friends of Iowa co-founder LaVon Griffieon has submitted to the Iowa Smart Planning Task Force.

I’m putting up this thread early because of the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur, which starts at sundown Friday evening. While I’m in services, a large crowd will attend the Republican Party of Iowa’s Reagan Dinner in Des Moines. Representatives Steve “10 Worst” King, Tom Latham, gubernatorial nominee Terry Branstad, Senator Chuck Grassley, and Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn will speak before the keynote address by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

C-SPAN will televise the event. Political junkies will watch to see how Palin addresses the activists whose support she’ll need if she runs for president in 2012, as expected. An early poll commissioned by The Iowa Republican blog found Palin in fourth place among Iowa Republicans this summer, behind Mike Hucakbee, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Some supporters of Bob Vander Plaats for governor have hard feelings about her substance-free endorsement of Branstad shortly before the June primary. Will she placate them tonight by enthusiastically backing the effort to remove Iowa Supreme Court judges from office this November?

I encourage Bleeding Heartland readers who watch the Reagan Dinner to post your impressions here. Please refrain from sexist insults when talking about Palin.

My only prediction is that no speaker will acknowledge how much Ronald Reagan raised taxes as president and as governor of California.

This is an open thread, so share anything on your mind this weekend.

UPDATE: Apparently Palin praised Terry Branstad’s record on supporting special education. The Iowa Democratic Party set the record straight in a statement I’ve posted after the jump.

Ben Smith summarized Palin’s message as defending the Republican insurgency. She still hasn’t explained why Iowa is one of the few places where she backed the establishment candidate (Branstad) over the more conservative alternative.

Jonathan Martin wondered why Grassley talked about Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi so much. He’s been doing that for a while–for example, during his joint appearance with Roxanne Conlin on Iowa Public Television.

During Tuesday night’s debate, Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad bashed the “ill-fated” I-JOBS infrastructure bonding program as a “huge” mistake. Bleeding Heartland has noted before that Iowa’s debt load is still low by national standards, and Branstad grudgingly acknowledged that fact. At the same time, he argued that Iowa’s debt load is moving in the wrong direction and had tripled since he left office.

As usual, Branstad exaggerated the I-JOBS repayment costs and failed to explain how he would have financed rebuilding after the worst floods in Iowa history on a “pay as you go” basis during a severe recession. I was intrigued to see a couple of new angles in the Republican’s case against I-JOBS, though.  

Senator Chuck Grassley remains a loud and proud voice for extending all the Bush tax cuts, as he and Democratic challenger Roxanne Conlin argue over who is the real advocate for small business interests.

That and other news from the U.S. Senate race is after the jump. You can also view Conlin’s second television commercial of the general election campaign, which introduces her as “one tough grandma.”

Three times as many Democrats as Republicans have submitted requests for an absentee ballot in Iowa, according to numbers released by the Secretary of State’s Office today. Early voting begins on September 23, and so far Iowa county auditors have received 33,017 absentee ballot requests from registered Democrats, 11,785 from Republicans and 8,811 from no-party voters. We can’t tell which direction those independents are leaning; both Democratic and Republican campaigns have been trying to identify supporters not registered with either party.

Democrats will be pleased by their early lead, but only a small percentage of Iowa voters (perhaps 5 percent of the electorate) have submitted absentee ballot requests already. About 1.05 million Iowans cast ballots in the 2006 general election.

Iowa Democrats had a successful early voting program in 2008, which saved several state legislative seats. How well they replicate that program could make the difference in some of the battleground state House and Senate districts. Banking votes early leaves fewer voters who need to be contacted by phone or at the door. It also reduces the number of people who could be swayed by last-minute attack ads and mailers against Democratic candidates. Since early summer, Democratic candidates and volunteers have brought absentee ballot request forms with them while canvassing. Some Democrats who have voted absentee in the past have received mailings that include the request form.

Iowa Republicans are doing more early GOTV this year than in the past. I’ve been told Terry Branstad and his running mate Kim Reynolds recorded robocalls urging Republicans to vote by absentee, and the Branstad campaign produced a glossy direct-mail piece including a request form. I don’t know whether that was mailed to a large voter population or only to people who responded to the robocall that they would like to vote by absentee.  

After the jump I’ve posted the full press release from the Secretary of State’s Office. The official website will update numbers for absentee ballots requested every weekday from now through the end of the campaign.

cross posted at Iowa Voters.

 Last week a story surfaced that seven Iowa counties supposedly had more registered voters than adult citizens. The story was advanced by a devious blogger and became state-wide news. Let's take a look at his devious ways.

1. He pretended to be more than one person, calling himself a “law center” when in fact he is a lawyer-blogger whose blog is called ElectionLawCenter.com. This deviation from the facts managed to fool Iowa Secretary of State candidate Matt Schultz who yesterday told a radio audience the blogger was a non-partisan watchdog group.

2. His letter to Iowa's Secretary of State Michael Mauro would find its way onto the website of Mauro's opponent Schultz, but he never called the Secretary to investigate before he threatened to sue, according to Mauro's election director Sarah Reisetter.

3. He used the Republican Noise Machine to push the story. It was picked up by the Washington Times, Michelle Malkin, TheIowaRepublican.com and and he put it on his other blog at pajamas media. Eventually Iowa media took the bait. Bingo!

4. His accusatory letter had no numbers included so the public could not evaluate his threat. This allowed Matt Schultz to pimp the story while carefully noting that he could not know if it was actually worrisome or even true.

5. When confronted with real numbers by this post, he alleged that some of the adults should not count because they may be non-citizens. He avoided admitting that the rural county in question is only .2% foreign born. That's two people for every thousand. And no doubt some (all?) of them eventually became citizens.

6. Finally he admitted he has no ability to sue since he doesn't live in any of the states he threatened. Someone else will have to use his non-numbers to buttress their own court case. Fat chance in Iowa.

The blogger (J. Christian Adams) never discussed the real reasons that there might be more voters on the list than there are on the census website. Let us count the reasons:

Candidate Matt Schultz went on the radio yesterday to push his “number one issue”—requiring photo identification of all voters. In the process he showed how little he knows about election laws and covered up his discomfort by laughing his way through the ten minute interview.

Schultz portrayed the accusatory electionlawcenter.com as a “non-partisan group.” In fact it is a blog run by a highly partisan attorney. If you try to find the so-called center with a Google search, all you can find is the blog. Schultz should know this by now.

Then he acknowledged that no actual numbers were provided in the letter threatening to sue Iowa for incorrect numbers. He admitted that the charges are unproven. Nevertheless he still features the letter at his website and he wants to use the story to push his agenda. That is indeed the real purpose of the story in the first place–to scare us into erecting barriers to voting.

Schultz joked about dead people voting or about people moving here from Chicago to impersonate dead Iowans at the polls. Since this canard is not grounded in any facts, he offered no facts to back it up. If he ever checked the voting rolls for dead Iowans, he could see that their names are removed as part of routine list maintenance. If he had paid attention last week to Secretary Mauro's rebuttal, Schultz would even know the number of deceased removed in each county.

He further alleged that poll workers are powerless to stop an unfamiliar voter from impersonating the dead. He's never actually read the law: Iowa Code 49.77 (3)

A precinct election official may require of the voter
unknown to the official, identification in the form prescribed by the state commissioner by rule. If identification is established to the satisfaction of the precinct election officials, the person may then be allowed to vote.

In a few minutes on the radio Schultz and his interviewer managed to mention aliens, Arizona, cheating, felons, dead voters, and Chicago politics while pretending to be average citizens bewildered by the ways of election administration. I'd say that makes him a poor candidate for Secretary of State.

Still, you got to hand it to him. When you are not constrained by any facts, a few minutes on statewide radio is all you need to plant doubts in the minds of the public. He was wildly successful at that.

cross-posted at iowavoters.org/

Democrat Roxanne Conlin launched her first television commercial in the U.S. Senate general election campaign yesterday, highlighting Chuck Grassley’s vote for the Wall Street bailout in 2008 and tax breaks for companies that move manufacturing overseas.

The ad, transcript and other thoughts about the Senate race are after the jump.

UPDATE: I’ve added the Conlin campaign’s response to one of Grassley’s new tv ads too.

The stage is set for Chet Culver and Terry Branstad’s debate. According to the Culver-Judge campaign site,

To watch the debate you can tune your TV to one of the following channels:

KCAU – Sioux City

WOI – Des Moines

WHBF – Quad Cities

Mediacom Public Access channels

CSPAN

Or watch it live online at any of these websites:

myabc5.com

siouxcityjournal.com

qctimes.com

wcfcourier.com

Several Iowa politics-watchers will be live-blogging, but in an act of flagrant blogger malpractice I will be away from my tv and my computer this evening for a prior commitment. Bleeding Heartland readers, use this thread to chat about the debate. I’ll watch later and update with my thoughts.

I hope Culver is able to get Branstad on the defensive early and keep him there. The Branstad campaign continues to lie about Iowa’s fiscal condition in response to the new Culver television ad released today. After the jump I posted the Culver campaign’s fact check on Branstad’s response.

UPDATE: I didn’t catch the Iowa Public TV replay on my vcr, and I couldn’t find the video online last night. Still looking for a transcript; here’s the Sioux City Journal liveblog. Judging from that and the recaps posted at Iowa Independent, the Sioux City Journal, and the Des Moines Register, it seems like a solid performance for Culver. Bret Hayworth writes,

I give the debate edge to Culver. Branstad was just like the Campaign Trail Branstad, workmanlike, delivering a message, but ultimately reserved.

It sounds like Branstad had plenty of awkward moments, including apparently not understanding the debate rules. Hayworth and several others noted Culver’s inelegant phrase about wanting Iowa to have a “brain suck” rather than a “brain drain.” That reminds me of Ross Perot on the “giant sucking sound” of jobs heading to Mexico because of NAFTA.

After the jump I’ve posted three statements the Culver campaign released last night. The first hits the main themes Culver wants to take from the debate: Culver “delivers,” Branstad “confused and dishonest.” The second challenges Branstad’s failure to meet previous job-creation promises, and underscores problems with the Indiana economic development model Branstad favors. The third lists 60 taxes Branstad raised during his 16 years as governor.

SECOND UPDATE: Todd Dorman thinks “‘undecided’ likely gained some significant ground” because of the slugfest. He also listed the debate moments that stuck out in his mind: the candidates’ comments on judicial selection, mistakes, taxes, preschool and floods. I didn’t realize Branstad was backtracking on his anti-preschool stance and desire to change the way we select judges. Kathie Obradovich didn’t care for the debate and wrote, “I doubt this debate did more than cement supporters’ positions on both sides. Any undecided voters who ventured to watch could have easily been persuaded by the nonstop attacks to turn off the TV and find a place to hide their brains until Nov. 3.”

Also at the Des Moines Register, Jason Clayworth fact-checked a number of statements Culver and Branstad made during the debate. As Bleeding Heartland readers already know, Branstad inflates the cost of the I-JOBS bonding program.

THIRD UPDATE: Radio Iowa’s Kay Henderson posted a detailed live-blog here.

The Iowa Democratic Party posted six video clips of debate highlights here. I think my favorite is “Governor Culver on Terry Branstad’s love affair with Indiana.”

Tonight Governor Chet Culver and Republican Terry Branstad meet in the first of three scheduled debates. Branstad can afford to play it safe, since he has led every head to head poll of this race. Culver is under more pressure, because he needs to change the dynamic of the race. After watching the Republican gubernatorial debates in the spring, I think Culver can throw Branstad off-balance by pointing out how his campaign rhetoric doesn’t square with what he did in 16 years as governor.

Culver also needs to make a convincing case for his own re-election. His campaign has been sending some mixed messages, with three new television commercials–very different in tone–going up in the past week.

Iowa for Freedom, the group seeking to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices this November, began running a statewide television commercial on Monday.

The ad echoes language Iowa for Freedom chair Bob Vander Plaats used during his gubernatorial campaign, and it reflects the same failure to understand the judicial review process.

The video and transcript are after the jump, along with an update on the counter-effort to protect judicial independence in Iowa.

Less than a week after his first general election television ads went on the air across Iowa, Senator Chuck Grassley launched two new commercials today.

The first ad is the most brazen image make-over I’ve seen in a while, casting Grassley as a brave warrior against drug companies. The other commercial touts the way Grassley uses new media to keep in touch with constituents.

Videos, transcripts, and more are after the jump.

UPDATE: I’ve also added the Conlin campaign’s response to one of these ads.

Democratic candidate for Secretary of Agriculture Francis Thicke is calling for regulations “modeled after a program that has been used successfully in Maine for more than 22 years to return integrity to Iowa-produced eggs.” Thicke introduced the proposal during his September 11 debate with Republican incumbent Bill Northey. Excerpt from his opening statement:

The State of Maine’s egg safety program complements the new [Food and Drug Administration] egg rule and shores up weaknesses in the federal rule. Specifically, the Maine program has three features that go beyond the requirements of the new FDA egg rule: 1) An effective program for vaccination of laying hens; 2) Monthly inspection of laying facilities for sanitation, and testing for Salmonella within the building; and 3) Egg testing when Salmonella is found in the building.

I’ve posted the full text of Thicke’s opening statement after the jump. Gabe Licht covered the debate for the Spencer Daily Reporter, and Lynda Waddington was there for Iowa Independent. Northey defended his record on egg safety, denying his department had the authority to inspect the feed mill suspected in the salmonella outbreak:

Thicke reiterated the secretary of agriculture should inspect feed mills, noting the [Jack] DeCoster feed mill filled 12,500 semi loads annually.

“First of all, there is a distinct word in there,” Northey fired back. “… Commercial feed mills that sell feed. The reason that we do that is to actually protect the consumer of those that are buying feed from others. Our regulations are actually not for food safety, but are for protection of consumers… We have been told … this mill does not sell feed — that birds at the other facility are owned by DeCoster as well… Just as we don’t go to a farmer mixing his own feed, we do not go to those mills that are producing feed for private facilities or on their own facilities.”

“The secretary of agriculture has the authority to make rules to cover loopholes and this is a DeCoster loophole playing a shell game and we should not play that game with him,” Thicke said.

The incumbent had pointed words for his rival.

“Unless you know something we need to know more about the situation …, it would be important to … wait for the information and be able to find out whether they were actually in violation of that or not,” Northey said. “… We don’t just make decisions on large facilities different than others because our rule says we are to inspect commercial facilities selling feed to others, not facilities of a certain size.”

Thicke has said Iowa Department of Agriculture rule-making could have closed the loopholes that allowed DeCoster’s feed mill to avoid state inspections.

The secretary of agriculture candidates also clashed over agricultural zoning:

Although both candidates were clear that there is enough room in Iowa for all types of sizes of agriculture, and that they would support all aspects of the industry, a major difference between them was exposed while answering a question regarding local control of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) placement.

“Absolutely,” said Thicke, who argued that allowing local government to decide the site of CAFOs would not add additional regulations for owners, who already must follow county building policies, but would allow local residents control over their environment.

Northey disagreed and stated that agribusinesses “need one set of rules,” otherwise there would be “a real challenge” in getting any new developments approved.

Thicke, who formerly served on the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission, sympathized with country residents who had to live near “toxic fumes,” while Northey sympathized with producers “who have been demonized.”

Speaking of local control, last week Dave Murphy of Food Democracy Now wrote about the connection between DeCoster’s operations and Iowa’s 1995 law protecting CAFOs from zoning at the county level:

After initially rising from poverty in Maine with a small chicken operation, DeCoster’s run-ins with New England legal authorities led him to flee to Iowa, where he ventured into building hog confinements and factory farm egg facilities just in time to coincide with that state’s loosening of the environmental regulations in 1995, with the passing of House File 519, which stripped all local authority from regulating factory farms.

The passage of this piece of legislation single-handedly pushed more independent hog farmers out of farming in Iowa, the nation’s number one hog and egg producer, than any other law in the state’s history. Since 1994, the year prior to the passage of H.F. 519, Iowa has lost nearly 72% of the state’s hog farmers, as the number has dropped from 29,000 to 8,300 today. As part of the industry trend, hogs moved off pasture into massive warehouse-style confinements, hundreds of which Jack DeCoster built across much of central Iowa, laying the foundation for a “protein” producing empire that included pork, eggs and a steady stream of state and federal violations.

That would be a great issue to use against Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad, in an alternate world where the Culver-Judge administration and the Democratic-controlled Iowa legislature had done something to advance local control during the past four years.

A Republican partisan is trying to make Iowa look bad. He is threatening to sue us over our voter registration rolls.

It's not news when a blogger threatens to sue a state official, so he calls his blog “Election Law Center.” This isn't your average blogger, since he is a lawyer, but he's still just a partisan hack trying to gin up fears of dead people voting or of aliens behind the curtain canceling out your vote.

Naturally this attack is featured on the website of the Republican candidate for Secretary of State Matt Schultz. What else has he got to offer us? Probably nothing. Last spring he was the only one of the several Republicans running for this nomination who did not answer questions I sent about the auditing of voting machine results.

Now he aligns with that blogger who says several Iowa counties have listed more voters than there are adults in the county. He can't know how many people live there since census figures are nearly ten years old. Other figures on population do exist, but Republicans always say they are not reliable. They oppose using those figures in lieu of the census when drawing up legislative districts. Since those figures can make it look like there are phantom voters, then it's OK to use the data.

How could there possibly be more voters than citizens? For one thing, . . .

After watching this weekend’s “Iowa Press” program on Iowa Public Television, I’m not surprised Senator Chuck Grassley has been ducking debates with Democratic challenger Roxanne Conlin. You can view the 30-minute program or read the full transcript here. Conlin had Grassley on the defensive several times during the program, not only for refusing to debate her, but also for helping to create the federal deficit he now rails against:

This whole idea of tax cuts for the wealthy being the key to economic vibrancy is just plain wrong, we tried that, that’s what got us where we are.  We’ve got to solve the deficit problem that Senator Grassley, Senator Grassley as chair of the finance committee created a lot of the problem with the deficit, two tax cuts for the very wealthy. […]

Two tax cuts mostly benefiting the very wealthy passed by Senator Grassley, chair of the committee, not a dime paid for.  Two wars fought on the credit card.  Medicare Part D which includes that crazy provision that we can’t negotiate prices with the drug companies.  Those were under Senator Grassley’s finance committee and resulted in $1.3 trillion dollars a year of deficit.

Conlin also pointed out that Grassley used to support the individual health insurance mandate he now claims is unconstitutional. When he accused her of supporting amnesty for undocumented immigrants, she pointed out, “There’s only one person in this room who has voted for amnesty and that is Senator Grassley, not just once but twice.  In 1982 he introduced a bill for amnesty.”

Grassley tried to link Conlin to Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He also claimed she supports regulations and tax increases that would kill jobs. As for his refusal to debate Conlin, he said he frequently takes questions on the issues from Iowa reporters and from members of the public.

I mostly agree with Kathie Obradovich, who wrote, “Conlin scored the deepest cuts on Grassley and got only scratches in return.”

Grassley’s most successful gambits against Conlin were on job creation. He accused her of supporting what he called job-destroying legislation such as cap and trade, ending the Bush tax cuts for people over $250,000 in income and shutting down offshore oil drilling.

But he lost his momentum when Conlin countered that Grassley, as Finance Committee chairman, contributed to the deficit by supporting the Bush tax cuts without an offsetting spending cut and spending for two wars. He scoffed that she must not know that the Finance Committee doesn’t appropriate money.

“Aren’t you a senator?” Conlin shot back. “Didn’t you vote?”

An unclear question led to an odd statement from Grassley. Asked whether President George. W. Bush was wrong on Iraq, Conlin said he was wrong to start the war. Grassley, however, responded: “I think the fact the president (Obama) declared victory two weeks ago and brought the troops home is evidence that it was not wrong.” It left me wondering how the war’s end could justify the beginning.

The 30-minute limit wasn’t kind to Grassley. It takes him longer than Conlin to make his points and he seemed to get frustrated when a reporter tried to cut him off. He came off as angry, while Conlin looked composed. Iowa Public Television offered to make the show an hour long, but Grassley declined. That was a mistake.

Grassley didn’t look at Conlin during the television program, nor did he mention her name. After the taping, Radio Iowa’s Kay Henderson asked him about that:

I was one of the reporters in the studio for the taping of today’s “Iowa Press” show, and during the news conference with Grassley I asked:  “Senator, I know Dean, Mike and I are very compelling figures, but you never once looked at Roxanne Conlin during the entirety of the show.  What were you signalling with that body language?”

“Nothing,” Grassley said in reply.

Lynn Campbell of IowaPolitics.com then asked another question.  “Senator, how confident are you about your reelection this November and how would you describe the challenge from Ms. Conlin versus the other five elections you’ve faced?”

Grassley said this to Campbell:  “I’ll have you repeat the question.”

Then Grassley directed his comments back to me:  “I wish you had told me because I would have been very happy to look at her.  She’s a very nice looking woman.  She’s very intelligent.  I have nothing against looking at her, but I thought I ought to concentrate on the people who were asking the questions because from your body language I learned a lot.”

The assembly of reporters laughed.

Grassley makes some really odd comments sometimes.

In other news this weekend, the “big game” between Iowa and Iowa State turned into a blowout. Congratulations to Hawkeyes and condolences to Cyclones in the Bleeding Heartland community.

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