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?

Two-term incumbent Dave Loebsack launched the first television commercial of this year’s campaign on Thursday. The 30-second spot is playing district-wide (Cedar Rapids, Quad Cities, Ottumwa-Kirksville, and Quincy, Illinois) on broadcast and cable networks. The campaign hasn’t specified the size of the buy.

For now I can’t embed the video here; you’ll have to watch at his campaign website. LATE UPDATE: Video up on YouTube:

Here is my rough transcript:

Loebsack: I’m Dave Loebsack, and I approved this message.

Male voice-over: Raised in poverty by a single mother, Dave Loebsack knows first-hand the struggle just to get by. Starting at 16, Loebsack pulled himself up, worked at a sewage treatment plant, then through college as a janitor. It’s why Loebsack is fighting to help small business create jobs and hold Wall Street accountable for recklessness and greed. Because Dave Loebsack will always stand up for what’s right.

This ad doesn’t break any new ground visually or in terms of content. The biographical piece emphasizing the candidate’s humble beginnings and connection to ordinary people has become a staple of campaigns for all offices. The only unusual thing I noticed is the man with a pony tail talking to Loebsack near the end of the commercial. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen that in an Iowa political ad before. But it’s hardly a radical fashion statement in a district with the Iowa City/Cedar Rapids corridor as its population center.

Loebsack’s campaign hasn’t released any internal polling on his rematch against Mariannette Miller-Meeks, but I assume it’s not too terrible if he’s beginning with a positive ad. Many Democratic incumbents around the country are already running negative spots about the Republican challenger. Representative Leonard Boswell’s opening radio advertisement contrasted his record on biofuels with statements by Republican Brad Zaun.

Among Iowa’s five Congressional districts, IA-02 has the strongest Democratic lean (partisan voting index of D+7). In other words, Loebsack’s district voted about 7 points more Democratic than the national average in the last two presidential elections. The Iowa City ballot measure regarding the ban on under-21s in bars will probably drive student turnout higher than in an ordinary midterm election, which has to be good for Loebsack.

The high unemployment rate in several of the 15 counties in the district works against the incumbent, however. Also, Mariannette Miller-Meeks has relatively high name recognition as a repeat challenger. It remains to be seen whether conservative Republicans will get behind Miller-Meeks. In October 2008, Iowa Right to Life unfairly accused her of being a “pretender” on the abortion issue. During her September 7 interview with the Des Moines Register editorial board, Miller-Meeks said she might support a path to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants, after our international border has been secured and if the American people favor that policy. That reasonable stance will be anathema to segments of the Iowa Republican base.

Both Loebsack and Miller-Meeks held campaign events today before the big Iowa/Iowa State football game in Iowa City.

UPDATE: Thanks to corncam for flagging this disappointing article in the Cedar Rapids Gazette:

“Where rubber hits the road – because it’s connected to the deficit issue, the debt issue – is what we do about those making over $200,000 and couples making $250,000?” he said. “I’ve said all along that I didn’t want to extend those [Bush] tax cuts, but I’m rethinking that at the moment.”

Extending the tax cuts for those top-earners would cost the federal treasury $700 billion over 10 years, but Loebsack is having second thoughts because of the impact ending the tax cuts for the wealthy might have on the economy.

“We have a weak recovery that needs to continue,” Loebsack said. “Those folks at those top levels consume a pretty fair amount of what is consumed in this country and this is a demand-driven economy.

No, the folks at the top tend not to spend most of what they get back in tax cuts. In contrast, people who are struggling will spend all their extra money immediately. If Congress wants to “support the recovery” to the tune of $70 billion a year, they should extend unemployment benefits for the “99-ers” (those who have exhausted all 99 weeks of payments). Unemployment benefits are among the most stimulative forms of government spending.

The conservative 501(c)4 organization American Future Fund commissioned polls last week in Iowa’s first, second and third Congressional districts. Yesterday the group released partial results from the surveys, touting the supposedly low re-elect numbers for Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03).

The topline results showed Democratic incumbents leading their challengers in all three races, even among the “certain to vote” sub-sample.

Terry Branstad launched a new campaign ad on Tuesday. Like his previous commercials, the “Big Bad Debt” spot strings together a bunch of numbers (some of them wrong) to create the false impression that Iowa’s in bad fiscal shape.

The commercial invites a lot of tough questions journalists could be asking the Branstad campaign, such as:

Why do you keep claiming Iowa has a $1 billion budget deficit when the state budget is balanced?

Why do you keep citing months-old warnings about Iowa’s “budget cliff” when the latest revenue collections were stronger than projected, and the ending balance for fiscal year 2010 will be much larger than expected?

Why are you still using inflated estimates for the I-JOBS repayment costs, when you know the bonds were sold at lower interest rates more than a year ago?

You keep attacking $2.5 billion in “overspending,” alluding to federal stimulus money and funding from the state reserves. How would you balance the state budget without accepting any federal stimulus money or using state reserve funds?

Why are you making the I-JOBS borrowing the centerpiece of your case against Culver when Branstad also borrowed to fund infrastructure projects when he was governor, and sometimes had to borrow money to address the state’s cash-flow problems?

Why are you bragging about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s upcoming Iowa visit when Christie presided over more state borrowing in his first year than Culver has in his whole term?

The ad is after the jump, along with the kind of scrutiny Iowa’s media should be providing.

Senator Chuck Grassley launched two new campaign advertisements on Tuesday, his first television commercials since a 30-second spot that aired shortly before the June primary. Like that first ad, both new commercials say nothing about conservative policy stands or opposing President Obama’s agenda. They don’t even mention his party affiliation. Instead, they depict the senator as a hard worker who has stayed connected to Iowa and works for all of his constituents.

Videos and more analysis are after the jump.

Mariannette Miller-Meeks considered withdrawing from her rematch against Representative Dave Loebsack in Iowa’s second Congressional district this summer, the Republican candidate told the Des Moines Register’s editorial board yesterday. Miller-Meeks stepped down from her ophthalmology practice in early 2009 to focus on running for Congress again, so when her husband lost his job this July, her family had no income.

Miller-Meeks said she told no one about her dilemma, not even Republican Party officials. […]

The family financial crisis influenced her political perspectives, she said. It sharpened her beliefs that the government should stay out of debt and that steps must be taken to make health insurance more affordable.

Since stepping down from her medical practice, Miller-Meeks had had health insurance coverage through her husband’s job. He has a new job now, but Miller-Meeks told the Register’s staff that she has chosen not to be on his insurance plan.

“I’m a very healthy person, and what I’ve done is look at my family history and determine what my level of risk is,” she said. “Am I saying it’s a smart thing to do? No. I think we need to make health insurance more affordable.”

The country needs to get to a point where a family of four can pay $2,000 a year for a plan that covers immunizations, preventative medicine and catastrophic needs, Miller-Meeks said. She also supports a nationwide risk pool and allowing health insurance purchasing across state lines, she said.

If elected, she would like to choose a federal plan that covers only catastrophic illness or injury, she said.

It must have been a very stressful summer for the Miller-Meeks family. While I’m sorry to hear about her situation, I wouldn’t recommend going without health insurance based on a good medical history. A flukey infection can incur tens of thousands of dollars in health care costs, to say nothing of a cancer diagnosis or some chronic illness. I also wouldn’t advise a friend to choose a limited catastrophic plan like the one Miller-Meeks prefers for herself and many others. There’s a reason such policies are commonly known as “junk insurance.” Letting people buy insurance across state lines sounds good in theory, until you consider how the race to the bottom gutted regulations for credit card issuers.

Miller-Meeks is a hard worker and clearly committed to seeing this race through, but some Republicans may be upset to learn that she was on the verge of quitting for the second election in a row. A wingnut faction in the Iowa GOP already distrusts Miller-Meeks for allegedly being too moderate.

Miller-Meeks has been campaigning energetically around the second district with a generic Republican message. She calls Loebsack names like “Do-nothing Dave” and Pelosi’s puppet, rails against the health insurance reform law and the 2009 federal stimulus:

Stimulus funding has failed to create jobs, and it probably would have worked better to funnel money directly to the American people, she said.

The stimulus bill created and saved millions of jobs according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. Without it the economy would have continued to decline steeply. Evidence is mounting that the stimulus wasn’t big enough, the opposite of Miller-Meeks’ claim. Tax cuts made up about one-third of the stimulus bill’s costs, even though government spending provides more “bang for the buck” than tax cuts do. The stimulus provisions with the biggest “bang for the buck” did give money directly to Americans in the form of extended unemployment benefits and food stamps. Other stimulus spending that kept teachers and public safety workers on the job helped ordinary Americans as well.

Few analysts expect the IA-02 race to be competitive this year, because the district has a strong Democratic lean, and Loebsack defeated Miller-Meeks by 57 percent to 39 percent in 2008. (A Green Party candidate who isn’t running this year picked up 3 percent last cycle.) Loebsack also has a large cash on hand advantage over his challenger. Then again, the overall political environment favors Republicans, and pockets of the second district have high unemployment.

I do agree with Miller-Meeks on one point: Loebsack should debate her. Barbara Grassley advised Miller-Meeks to schedule a debate and show up to face an empty chair if necessary (funny advice in light of Senator Chuck Grassley’s refusal to debate Roxanne Conlin). But I hope it doesn’t come to such theatrics. Miller-Meeks deserves a chance to debate the incumbent, just as fifth district candidate Matt Campbell deserves a debate against incumbent Steve “10 Worst” King.

Any comments about the IA-02 campaign are welcome in this thread.

CORRECTION: I didn’t realize that the candidates had agreed to three debates already: an AARP forum in Coralville on September 13, a joint Iowa Public Television appearance on September 24 and a debate hosted by KCRG in Cedar Rapids on October 12.

UPDATE: Miller-Meeks thinks staggered enrollment in Medicare is the way to make the program solvent. But people approaching retirement age are among those most likely to have pre-existing conditions and have sky-high private insurance costs. How is that going to work?

SEPTEMBER 24 UPDATE: Miller-Meeks said on Iowa Public TV’s Iowa Press program that she has catastrophic health insurance coverage.

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor urged a large crowd in Des Moines today to safeguard judicial independence in Iowa:

“We have to address the pressures that are being applied to that one safe place, the courtroom,” O’Connor said. “We have to have a place where judges are not subject to outright retaliation for their judicial decisions. That’s the concept. Sure they can be ousted and that’s part of the system, but what the framers of our federal constitution tried to do was establish a system of judicial selection where the judges would not be subject to retaliation by the other branches for their judicial actions.”

O’Connor is in Iowa at the invitation of the Iowa State Bar Association, which was key in forming the group Iowans for Fair and Impartial Courts. The group’s efforts come as another group, Iowa for Freedom led by former Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats, is working to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices who were part of the unanimous decision in Varnum v. Brien legalizing same-sex marriages. […]

O’Connor said today there are threats to the court system by about 20 states that still have openly partisan elections to select judges with vast amounts of campaign contributions coming into the courtrooms. She said it’s eroding the faith in the court system. She urged Iowa to stay the course. “Iowa is probably going through a stressful time now,” she said. “Just don’t throw out the system because at times it’s under stress. And I know you won’t do that.”

O’Connor has experience with partisan politics as well as judicial elections. She was a Republican leader in the Arizona State Senate before being elected as an Arizona judge. Then Governor Bruce Babbitt appointed her to the state’s court of appeals before President Ronald Reagan nominated her for the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Republican Party of Iowa isn’t taking a leading role in ousting the three Supreme Court judges who are up for retention this November. They’ve left that battle to interest groups on the religious right, which plan to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the campaign. Behind the scenes, the Republican Governors Association is also reportedly funding Vander Plaats’ new vehicle, Iowans for Freedom.

Many Republican attorneys and business owners oppose the campaign to punish judges for making an unpopular decision. But to my knowledge, not a single Iowa Republican office-holder or candidate has spoken out for retaining the Supreme Court judges and preserving our current judicial nominating system. I’ve seen many Republican candidates call for ousting the judges and returning to judicial elections. Gubernatorial nominee Terry Branstad is nominally staying neutral, declaring the retention vote “an issue on which people need to decide for themselves” and “vote their conscience.”

What a shame that the Iowa Republican tent isn’t large enough to accommodate politicians who respect our judicial system enough to openly defend its independence.  

1000 Friends of Iowa is taking nominations through September 28 for the organization’s Best Development Awards. Projects anywhere in Iowa can be nominated in one of six categories: new residential, renovated residential, renovated commercial/civic, new commercial/civic, mixed use, and leadership. Click here for details on how to submit a nomination. I posted the selection criteria after the jump.

I’m active with 1000 Friends of Iowa, and while I’m not involved in choosing the award winners, every year I’m inspired to see the amazing development work being done around this state.

Click here for photos and information about the 2009 Best Development Award winners: the Marshalltown Public Library (new commercial/civic), Court Avenue Lofts in Des Moines (new residential), Durrant Building in Dubuque (renovated commercial/civic), Westfield Avenue Lofts in Waterloo (renovated residential), Plaza Towers in Iowa City (mixed use), and the Historic Millwork District Master Plan in Dubuque (leadership).

Projects in Davenport, Dubuque, Sioux City, Marion, West Des Moines and Iowa City won Best Development Awards in 2008. The ISU Design West building in Sioux City was one of my all-time favorite nominees.

Projects in Dubuque, Elkader, Davenport, Lake Park (near Spirit Lake) and the City of Okoboji won Best Development Awards in 2007. Projects in Conrad, Central City, Cedar Rapids, Waterloo and Des Moines won Best Development Awards in 2006. The 2005 award-winners were Iowa City’s Peninsula neighborhood, the Van Allen building in Clinton, the America’s River Project in Dubuque and the Strand Theater in Grinnell.

The number of award-winning projects in Dubuque is a testament to how hard city and business leaders have been working on redevelopment and sustainability in recent years. Many other Iowa towns and cities could learn from their example.

UPDATE: The Des Moines Rehabber’s Club is taking nominations for its 3rd Annual Most Endangered Buildings list through October 8. Click the link for details on that competition.

Republican Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey will debate his Democratic challenger Francis Thicke on September 11, the Thicke campaign announced today. The Spencer Daily Reporter is sponsoring the debate, which will take place from 11 am to 12:30 pm at the Clay County Fairgrounds, during this weekend’s county fair. The Thicke campaign’s press release states that the Spencer public access cable channel will broadcast the debate, but I hope Iowa Public Television and other media organizations will bring the exchange to a wider audience. Thicke argues,

Iowa voters deserve a full discussion of the issues that are important in this campaign – protecting water and air quality; local food production; local control over – and reducing the impacts of – concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs); more diversity on the landscape, including more use of cover and perennial crops; and truly sustainable, renewable, farmer-owned energy systems for agriculture.

Thicke is seeking five debates with Northey, one in each of Iowa’s Congressional districts, but details about other possible meetings have not been finalized. The candidates clashed last week over the Iowa secretary of agriculture’s responsibility to inspect feed mills like the one where a recent salmonella outbreak seems to have originated.

Northey has won the endorsement of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation and the Iowa Association of Business and Industry, while Thicke has the Iowa Farmers Union’s endorsement. Last month Thicke published the questionnaire he completed for the Farm Bureau Federation and called on Northey to do the same, so that “so that Iowa voters can determine for themselves where each candidate stands on critical farm issues.”

In related news, today the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club sent an open letter to Attorney General Tom Miller requesting a “thorough investigation of the circumstances surrounding the egg recall for shell eggs produced by Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms Inc for violations of state law. This investigation should also include Quality Egg LLC Feed Mill, the supplier of the feed to both egg producers.” I’ve posted the full text of the letter after the jump. It includes a detailed list of facts supporting the Sierra Club’s view that the egg producers showed “reckless disregard for the health and well-being of the public.” To prevent similar violations in the future, the Sierra Club is also asking the Attorney General’s Office to consider possible “internal policy changes, legislative needs, and administrative rule changes.”

Miller recently returned a $10,000 campaign donation that Peter DeCoster made in 2005. DeCoster’s father owns the company at the center of the egg recall.

State Senator Rob Hogg of Cedar Rapids toured Iowa last week to discuss former Governor Terry Branstad’s record of inaction on flood prevention. This press release from September 3 highlights five key recommendations from 1994 Iowa Flood Disaster Report prepared by Brig. Gen. Harold Thompson of the Iowa National Guard (click here for a pdf file of the report) .

1. “Reducing vulnerability to future floods is as important as improving disaster relief capabilities and programs.” – Terry Branstad took no action on this recommendation

2. Communities need “adequate state assistance in mitigating future flood damage” – Terry Branstad took no action on this recommendation

3. Better flood technology and information including “electronic river monitoring,” “detailed river basin modeling,” and “extensive mapping” – Terry Branstad took no action on this recommendation

4. Incorporate “watershed management” including “wetland restoration” and “unchannelized streams” which can “play a large role in reducing flood damage downstream” – Terry Branstad took no action on this recommendation

5. “The State of Iowa should review the floodplain management responsibility [and] create a viable, effective program with adequate resources” – Worse than no action, the report says that Terry Branstad allowed the state’s program to “erode” and then took no action to restore the program

For a guy whose central campaign message is, “We did it before, and we can do it again,” Branstad has remarkably little to say in defense of his record. In fact, he didn’t respond directly to Hogg’s comments last week. Instead, his campaign manager attacked the messenger and tried to change the subject.  

How are you spending the holiday, Bleeding Heartlanders? I’m off to see the Iowa Cubs’ last game of the regular season. If they win, they’ll make the playoffs.

If you attended any labor celebrations this weekend, you may have encountered some Democrats running for office. U.S. Senate candidate Roxanne Conlin attended the Clinton County Labor Day picnic yesterday and was grand marshall of the South Central Iowa Federation of Labor Parade in Des Moines today. Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge is at the Dubuque Labor Day parade today. Senator Tom Harkin, Iowa Democratic Party chair Sue Dvorsky and others will be at the Iowa City Federation of Labor picnic. Governor Chet Culver walked the labor parade in Des Moines today; later he’s is scheduled to attend the Hawkeye Federation of Labor picnic in Cedar Rapids. Culver’s relationship with organized labor has been strained in recent years, but he is clearly a better choice for working people than Terry Branstad. Culver’s campaign released this statement on September 4:

CULVER HONORS LABOR AND DIVERSITY; BRANSTAD’S POLICIES ATTACK LABOR AND LATINOS

Des Moines – Governor Culver is participating in Labor Day activities all across the state of Iowa this weekend including festivities with hard-working Iowans in Ottumwa, Cedar Rapids and Burlington.  Governor Culver has been on the side of working families from day one of his administration.  The first bill he signed raised the minimum wage in Iowa.  He favors labors reforms that give workers their Choice of Doctor, Prevailing Wage, Expanded Scope of Collective Bargaining and Fair Share.

By contrast, Terry Branstad has vowed all labor reform is dead if he becomes Governor.  As Governor, Branstad had to be ordered by the Iowa Supreme Court to honor a legally binding contract between him and the state’s largest state labor union.  He has also opposed working families by his plan to cut health insurance for children, cut state funding for preschool, eliminate job creating entities such as the the Department of Economic Development, the Iowa Jobs and Infrastructure Initiative, and the Iowa Power Fund.

Governor Culver is also attending the Latino Festival today in Des Moines.  This year, Governor Culver signed legislation combating wage discrimination and a bill requiring new legislation to be reviewed for its impact on minority incarceration. Governor Culver is also a strong supporter of civil rights, women’s rights and worker’s rights.

By contrast, Terry Branstad now opposes a United States Supreme Court decision stating that all children in the U.S. are entitled to a basic public education regardless of the citizenship status of their parents.  Branstad says this decision should be challenged even though it has been the law of the land since before he was governor and he failed to challenge or even speak out against the ruling during his entire 16 years in the governor’s office.  Even more extreme, Branstad wants Iowa to go further than the Arizona law currently being challenged in federal court by requiring that everyone carry their birth certificate with them when traveling.  His plan would not only be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy but it would also cost local counties a fortune in increased law enforcement and jail costs.

The choice for the future is clear:  Governor Culver wants to help working families and encourage economic and population growth by making Iowa a more tolerant and welcoming place.  Conversely, Branstad wants to return to his extreme policies of the 1980s by making it tougher on working families.  He also wants to implement some of the most extreme policies in the nation by going further than the Arizona law regarding the immigration issue.

President Barack Obama is in Milwaukee today to announce “a comprehensive infrastructure plan to expand and renew our nation’s roads, railways and runways.” Trouble is, to create a significant number of new jobs we need to spend much more than the $50 billion the president is now proposing.

Farmers and farm workers who are regularly exposed to pesticides, take note: a new study conducted in Iowa and North Carolina showed that “women who are married to farmers who were licensed to apply pesticides” had a higher incidence of thyroid disease.

The percentage of private-sector American workers who belong to labor unions has fallen to about 7 percent. That’s unfortunate, because not only are union jobs more frequently higher-wage jobs, non-union employees are more likely to have health benefits if some of their colleagues belong to a union. I saw this summer that the Service Employees International Union is trying to organize Sodexo, the giant food-service company that runs dining-hall operations at many Iowa colleges.

The AFL-CIO ran a Labor Day television ad during some college football games, major-league baseball games, and a NASCAR race over the weekend. The commercial has a mostly non-political message about “America’s workers” being “the backbone of our communities,” “moving our country forward,” “working together for a stronger America.” Expect more hard-hitting ads to come later this fall: AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has promised “an aggressive and massive mobilization of working people this Labor Day weekend and for the fall election.” Democrats up and down the ticket in many states will be praying for a strong labor turnout, because most pollsters see a likely voter universe that tilts more toward Republicans than in 2008.

Finally, I got a laugh out of John Deeth’s observation today:

TheIowaRepublican says: “This Labor Day, Celebrate Iowa’s Right to Work Law.” Isn’t that like honoring deadbeat dads on Father’s Day?

Share any Labor Day thoughts in this thread.