Webster City got some good news on the green jobs front Monday:

EnVision Motor Company announced today that it will ship electric vehicles assembled at a facility in New York to a plant in Webster City. Workers in Webster City will finish the vehicles by installing the electric drive train.  EnVision president and C.E.O. Thomas Gleisner says these electric vehicles can reach a top speed of about 85 miles an hour. […]

These Electric Mobile Cars – EMC’s – can go about 200 miles on a charge, depending on how fast you drive, how much weight the vehicle is carrying and how much the vehicle has to battle wind friction. […]

Gleisner’s company, EnVision, is the U.S. distributor of these European-designed vehicles. The completed vehicle will roll off the assembly line at Auto Manufacturing Systems in Webster City, an already-existing plant.

As production ramps up, this deal is expected to create at least 300 jobs in Webster City. The Des Moines Register reported that the assembly line will use “factory space now occupied by Eagle Manufacturing, an Electrolux subcontractor. […] Eagle, a manufacturing company that now performs a variety of contract duties for Electrolux, is scheduled to lose that work by the end of next year.” In October 2009, Electrolux announced plans to close plants in Webster City and Jefferson, eliminating about 850 jobs by early 2011.

From a statement released by the governor’s office:

“We at EnVision were born and raised in Iowa. We could have easily gone outside Iowa and the United States, but we wanted to add jobs to Iowa, our home,” said EnVision CEO Thomas Gleisner. “We could not look past the ability of a community like Webster City to meet our needs. They have the experience and the workforce, and they have been involved in quality manufacturing for decades.”

EnVision is a distributor of electric vehicles for the entire United States. Auto Manufacturing Systems of Webster City will run the plant. Its parent company is Electric Mobile Cars, an importer based in New York.

City and business leaders in Webster City have also been recruiting employers in the renewable energy field to try to replace some of the Electrolux jobs. The city of Newton attracted some wind manufacturing following Maytag’s demise a few years ago.

Terry Branstad’s gubernatorial campaign launched a new YouTube video attacking the I-JOBS infrastructure bonding program. Like other leading Iowa Republicans, Branstad continues to exaggerate I-JOBS costs. The video claims the state bonding will cost Iowa taxpayers $55 million per year for 23 years (a total of $1.7 billion). However, when most of the I-JOBS bonds were sold a full year ago, strong investor demand and Iowa’s solid credit rating drove down the interest rate. The repayment costs are approximately $42 million yearly (from gaming revenue, not the general fund), and will add up to far less than $1.7 billion.

How long will Branstad get a free pass for math that doesn’t add up and false claims about Iowa’s finances? Your guess is as good as mine.

Branstad’s new video also suggests that I-JOBS has created no jobs and nothing of value. I explained why that’s wrong here and here.

UPDATE: Chet Culver’s campaign responded to this web ad from a different angle:

BRANSTAD MOCKS FLOOD VICTIMS IN LATEST WEB AD

DES MOINES – Gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad mocks recent flood victims in his newest web ad, in which he slams Governor Culver’s I-JOBS program.

“A large part of I-JOBS money goes toward flood recovery and mitigation efforts, just ask the citizens of Cedar Rapids and Coralville who depended on aid from I-JOBS to help rebuild their cities and limit damage from future flooding. But Terry Branstad continually mocks I-JOBS; the web video is just the latest representation of that,” said Culver/Judge Campaign Manager Donn Stanley.

Branstad has called the I-JOBS program a “folly.” [1]  The video, released by the Branstad campaign today, is goofy and is, at best, inconsiderate after this weekend’s flooding around Lake Delhi given how critical I-JOBS funding has been in rebuilding from the 2008 floods.

Stanley continued, “Despite this weekend’s flooding, the Branstad campaign continues to mock I-JOBS. It shows just how arrogant and out of touch Branstad and his campaign are. I certainly do not believe that mocking I-JOBS and the flood victims shows the kind of serious leadership Iowans need in tough times.”

Source

[1] Iowa Press Citizen, 6/2/10.

Last week Democratic and Republican candidates for the Iowa legislature filed disclosure reports on their campaign contributions and expenditures. For most candidates, those reports covered the period from June 2 through July 14. For the few candidates who didn’t file reports on the Friday preceding the June primary, the July 19 reports covered campaign fundraising and expenses between May 15 and July 14.

John Deeth posted cash-on-hand totals for candidates in most of the Iowa House and Senate battleground districts. The numbers are encouraging for Democrats, because our candidates lead their opponents in cash on hand in most of the targeted districts.

As I read through the July 19 contribution reports, I noticed something strange. Republican candidates in various targeted Iowa House and Senate districts reported improbably low fundraising numbers. As a general rule, candidates strive for impressive fundraising to demonstrate their viability, and cash on hand in July indicates which candidate will have more resources during crunch time. However, I got the impression that several of the Republican Iowa House and Senate candidates made little effort to obtain campaign contributions during the latest reporting period. Follow me after the jump for some examples and possible explanations.  

I don’t love the heat, but I love the produce of high summer. Last night’s dinner featured a stir-fry with local onions, carrots, kohlrabi, kale, bok choi, broccoli and Iowa-made tofu. Only the soba noodles and sauce weren’t local.

Usually I make my own stir-fry sauces. One light version is an Asian marinade from Moosewood Cooks at Home. In a small saucepan heat about 1/4 cup to 1/3 cup dry sherry, the same amount of tamari or soy sauce, half that amount of rice vinegar or cider vinegar, a tablespoon or two of brown sugar and a few slices of peeled fresh ginger. Bring to boil, stir and simmer for a minute before removing from the heat. I soak the cubed tofu in this sauce, then add it to the rest of the stir fry a couple of minutes before serving. I toss in a few tablespoons of toasted sesame oil at the end too.

I also like to make a variation on the Spicy Peanut Sauce from Moosewood’s Low-Fat Favorites. This can be drizzled over almost any steamed vegetables or added to a stir-fry near the end of cooking. To make it, throw the following in a blender: about 1/4 cup peanut butter, 1/3 cup water, 1 pressed garlic clove, a little fresh chile or dash of hot sauce, 2 Tbsp cider vinegar or rice vinegar, 1 Tbsp honey, 1 Tbsp soy sauce or tamari, 1 Tbsp lemon juice and about 2 tsp chopped fresh ginger root. Moosewood says to throw in 1/4 cup of diced tomatoes, but I leave those out. If you have extra sauce, you can keep it for a couple of weeks in the fridge (tightly sealed).

Share your own stir-fry secrets in this thread.

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

I learned from the Cedar Rapids Gazette that above-average temperatures across Iowa this summer have mitigated flooding somewhat despite heavy rainfall in June and July. Let’s hope for dry weather in the coming week, especially in areas that have flooded recently and of course along the RAGBRAI route.

While RAGBRAI towns will showcase our state’s welcoming side, Iowa Republicans have lately sounded less open to outsiders. I had hoped the worst of the Republican pandering on immigration would pass with the demise of Bob Vander Plaats’ gubernatorial aspirations. But GOP nominee Terry Branstad is now borrowing from the Vander Plaats playbook. Earlier this month, Branstad told supporters at one campaign stop,

   “When people are stopped for a criminal violation or traffic violation, if they cannot show they are here legally, they ought to be detained and turned over to the federal government for deportation,” Branstad said.

   Branstad cautioned, however, that he didn’t want Iowa taxpayers to be left paying the bill for the process.

   “I think the challenge is getting the federal government to fulfill their end of the deal,” Branstad told a group of about 25 people at the Lied Public Library. “I don’t want the local property taxpayers to have to pay for them to be in a county jail for month after month after month. They need to step up and do their part of it.”

Todd Dorman saw this as one sign of a new gubernatorial candidate emerging, “Terry Vander Branstad.” I don’t see any significant shift, because even though Branstad didn’t embrace Arizona’s immigration law during the primary campaign, he was already scoring points with exaggerated claims about undocumented immigrants stealing state benefits. Anyway, it’s nothing new for Branstad to take an incoherent campaign stance on a controversial issue or make promises he can’t back up with any substance.

One of Branstad’s favorite down-ticket Republicans, attorney general candidate Brenna Findley, spoke out about immigration policy during a talk radio appearance this week. Findley’s longtime boss Steve King would be proud, since he is a big fan of the Arizona approach. In fact, this week King joined 80 other U.S. House members in signing a “friend of the court” brief defending the law, which the U.S. Department of Justice has challenged in court.

Findley asserted on June 22,

Arizona passed their law because the federal government didn’t uphold the rule of law and it was hurting states like Arizona. So they had to take their own course of action there. Their murder rate was way up, they were experiencing a crime rate that they hadn’t seen recently and real people were being hurt.

Jason Hancock noted at Iowa Independent that “data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports and Arizona’s Department of Public Safety shows the state’s crime rate is actually down in recent years.” PolitiFact published more details here on Arizona’s declining crime rate. Don’t expect those facts or the federal government’s legal arguments to change Republican minds about immigration policy.

Some conservative strategists are concerned that embracing Arizona’s new law will hurt Republican electoral prospects in 2012, as Latinos are a fast-growing voter bloc in many states Republican presidential candidates need to win. Iowa Republicans probably aren’t worried about alienating Latino voters, because this rapidly growing demographic group is not expected to reach 10 percent of our state’s population until around 2030.

The Americans with Disabilities Act became U.S. law 20 years ago this week. Senator Tom Harkin, the law’s key author and sponsor, will keynote an anniversary celebration in Iowa City on Saturday afternoon. Harkin told the Cedar Rapids Gazette,

“Before the ADA, life was very different for folks in Iowa and across the country,” Harkin said. “Discrimination was both commonplace and accepted.”

After 20 years with ADA, “we recognize that people with disabilities – like all people – have unique abilities, talents and aptitudes,” he said, “and America is better, fairer and richer when we make full use of those gifts.”

However, Harkin sees the need to do more to help people with disabilities live outside of institutions and to help them gain employment.

I remember when Congress was debating this law, and some Republicans warned that new regulations on businesses would wreck the economy and spark endless lawsuits. However, President George H. W. Bush’s administration ultimately decided not to go to war against this bill, and compromise language exempting small businesses from some requirements satisfied most Congressional Republicans. The final version of the ADA passed the Senate on a 91 to 6 vote in July 1990. Senator Chuck Grassley voted yes, as did all the Democrats present and most of the Republicans.

Bipartisan support for ADA continued when Harkin worked with Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah to “preserve the intent of the ADA after several court rulings weakened its standards.” The ADA amendments act of 2008 passed by voice vote in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate. Yesterday a Senate resolution recognizing the ADA’s 20th anniversary and celebrating “the advance of freedom and the opening of opportunity” this law made possible passed by a 100 to 0 vote.

Harkin became an advocate for people with disabilities in part because his brother Frank was deaf. Probably most Americans have at least one friend or relative who has directly benefited from the ADA. The accessibility guidelines for curbs, doors and entrances have allowed my wheelchair-bound friend to take her son to the park, to preschool or to a coffee shop. Before the ADA, a mother in her situation would have been unable to enjoy those things.

This thread is for any comments about the ADA or continuing barriers faced by people with disabilities.

UPDATE: tessajp expresses her gratitude at Mother Talkers:

Every time I have pushed my sleeping child up a ramp, rather than take them out and fold the stroller up; I have been grateful for the ADA.

Every time I have taken my five year old into the larger bathroom stall, so that I could help her without having to expose us to the world at large; I have been grateful for the ADA.

Every time I have been able to open a door by pushing a button rather than contorting myself into some sad imitation of Mr. Fantastic in order to open the door and pull the stroller through at the same time; I have been grateful for the ADA.

While I’m sure the 101st Congress had nobler effects in mind when it passed the bill, I, as a fully abled bodied American who has never faced obstacles to full participation in the world, came to appreciate at least a small part of the bill when I became a parent.  So, thanks Senator Harkin for introducing it, and to all those who voted for it.  

LATE UPDATE: Dave Swenson’s reflections on this law are worth a read.

There are countless other provisions, but the point is clearly made here: prior to the ADA passage, persons with disabilities could be systematically discriminated against in a wide array of situations.  They could be denied entry to firms because of narrow doorways or an onerous passage.  They could be made to work in conditions that aggravated an existing impairment.  They could be denied meaningful employment for not being able-bodied when in fact the job required no such status.  And they could be warehoused in schools and institutions for lack of services or simple attention to their needs.

But discrimination is too soft a word.  The disabled in large part were frequently treated with utter indifference.  Due to their situation, they were irrelevant in the market and an afterthought regarding their possible enjoyment of a vast swath of the public’s benefits others of us take for granted.

Granted, the ADA cost the private sector and the public sector plenty in the short run, but in the long run it enhanced the workforce and social well being of millions of Americans.  The most recent estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau tell us there are over 41 million persons over the age of 5 with a disability, and a substantial fraction has never known a time when there was no ADA.  Another substantial fraction though remembers and is fully aware of the difference between now and then.

It strikes me, as I ponder this milestone, that the likelihood of the ADA passing today given the current configuration of Congress would be a doubtful enterprise.  For one, as it would impose costs on businesses it would be massively opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (as it was then) as inhibiting the competitiveness of all businesses and therefore, in the main, bad for the economy. As it would require an increase in government spending and oversight, it would add to the deficit, something that apparently is more and more taboo in the current environs.  And lastly, it would interfere with the right and power of all employers to employ the kind of people they most desired.

If the “energy package” about to emerge in the Senate looks anything like what Kate Sheppard is hearing, Senate Democrats should be ashamed. I threw in the towel on the climate bill a long time ago, because it was clear no serious attempt to address global warming could gain 60 votes in the Senate. Still, I thought some decent provisions might survive in a scaled-back energy bill.

Not so, according to Sheppard, who’s among the best reporters covering climate legislation. Sources from “several Senate offices” told her what’s likely to be in the new bill, and what will be conspicuously absent:

Obviously, there’s no carbon cap, that much we already knew. But there’s also no other major energy efficiency standards, and, perhaps most importantly, no renewable electricity standard -not even the weak one included in the energy bill last year. […]

Senate aides hoping to put a positive spin on the package note that it at least does not include any of the really bad measures that progressive senators were worried about, including major incentives for coal and nuclear power and the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

Are we supposed to be impressed that the largest Democratic Senate majority in decades won’t press ahead with “really bad measures” for the environment?

For all of President Barack Obama’s talk about our clean energy future, we won’t even get a renewable electricity standard to boost wind and solar production. We won’t get new energy efficiency standards, even though reducing demand for electricity tends to be faster and cheaper than building new facilities to generate electricity.

The American Wind Energy Association put out an action alert urging people to contact their senators demanding a renewable electricity standard in the energy bill. If you are so inclined, you can contact your senators through this page. I will contact the offices of Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley, although doing so probably won’t accomplish anything.

This disgrace gives me yet another reason not to donate to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the future. I don’t plan to waste my money or volunteer time on Organizing for America either. Obama failed to use his bully pulpit to produce a good climate bill and made stupid concessions to polluting industries along the way. He’s so afraid of losing a legislative battle that he didn’t even fight the good fight. But when he signs this worthless energy bill, he’ll probably declare victory in a very inspiring speech.

UPDATE: How pathetic–a White House official provides a blind quote to Politico blaming environmental groups for the Senate’s failure to pass a broad climate bill:

“They didn’t deliver a single Republican,” the official told POLITICO. “They spent like $100 million and they weren’t able to get a single Republican convert on the bill.”

Poor Mr. President. He could have delivered on one of his major campaign promises if the environmentalists hadn’t let him down.

SECOND UPDATE: I couldn’t agree more with Transportation 4 America: “With the Senate backing down on a real climate bill, it’s more important than ever that next transport bill helps make climate progress.”

President Obama is ready to sign a $34 billion bill to extend unemployment benefits to many out-of-work Americans after the U.S. Senate finally passed the bill last night and the House of Representatives followed suit today. Unemployment benefits for many Americans started running out in early June, but Senate Democrats failed in several attempts to overcome Republican filibusters of the measure. This week a cloture motion on the unemployment benefits bill finally passed 60-40, with Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine joining 58 Democrats to overcome a filibuster. (West Virginia now has a Democratic appointee filling Robert Byrd’s old seat; his long illness and death this summer had left Democrats one vote short of 60.)

Iowa’s Chuck Grassley joined the Republican filibuster again this week, and last night he voted no on the bill itself, which passed 59-39. Grassley’s office sent out this statement yesterday:

“There’s bipartisan consensus that Congress should extend unemployment insurance, but there’s no reason we can’t extend benefits and pay for it.  We’ve offered solutions, five separate times, on ways to pay, only to be rebuffed by the Democratic leadership.

“Iowans have told me time and time again that Congress must stop deficit spending, so I voted to extend unemployment insurance and pay for it.”

Give me a break. When we had a Republican president, Grassley never hesitated to vote for tax cuts for the wealthy, Medicare part D, or war supplemental funding bills that added to the deficit. In fact, under President George W. Bush the Republican-controlled Congress passed unemployment extensions without making sure the additional spending was “paid for.” Senator Tom Harkin got it right in his July 20 speech on the Senate floor:

“For far too long, the long-term unemployed have gone without the assistance they need because of political gamesmanship in the Senate.  Critics argue that we cannot help some of the most desperate workers in America if it adds a dime to the deficit, but in the next breath, they argue in favor of extending hundreds of billions of tax breaks for the most fortunate and privileged Americans was necessary.  Tell that to the working family in Iowa who, through no fault of their own, struggles with joblessness and cannot put food on the table.

“Some two and a half million unemployed Americans have seen their benefits terminated in recent weeks.  They are among the nearly 6.8 million Americans who have been out of work for more than half a year.  That’s the highest number of long-term unemployed we’ve had since we started keeping track in 1948.”  

The House approved the unemployment benefits extension by a vote of 272 to 152 (roll call). Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell all voted for the bill. Ten Democrats (mostly representing conservative districts) crossed the aisle to vote against the bill, and 31 House Republicans voted for it. That’s a surprisingly high number of Republicans going against their leadership. Iowa Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King stuck with the majority of their caucus. Not only do they lack compassion for some long-term unemployed Iowans whose benefits have run out, they apparently don’t understand that unemployment benefits are among the most stimulative forms of government spending.

It’s good news that benefits will be restored to millions of Americans in the coming weeks, but in other respects this bill falls short of what’s needed to address our long-term unemployment problem. Although the number of Americans out of work for at least six months is at its highest level in six decades, Congress still hasn’t done anything for people who have exhausted the full 99 weeks of eligibility for unemployment benefits. The House has approved more infrastructure spending and other measures that would create jobs, but for now the Senate seems unable to overcome GOP filibusters of further stimulus.

Representative Steve King rarely misses a chance to accuse the Obama administration of racism, but this week he seems uncertain about the best way to exploit the fiasco over USDA official Shirley Sherrod’s dismissal. King told Politico yesterday that he sympathized with Sherrod, having been misquoted himself.

King suggested Sherrod has changed her views over the past quarter-century and should get her job back.

“Also, I think it’s interesting that we don’t have it clear whether [U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom] Vilsack fired her or the White House fired her,” King added. “The president was going to be the first post-racial president but his whole presidency is becoming about race.”

But in a talk radio appearance, King took a different tack, saying Sherrod’s hiring by the USDA should be investigated. He noted Sherrod was a claimant in the Pigford case (a discrimination lawsuit black farmers brought against the USDA). Apparently King wants Americans to believe the Pigford case settlement resulted in too much money going to too many black farmers.

In other recent King news, to no one’s surprise he joined the new Tea Party Caucus that Michele Bachmann founded in the U.S. House of Representatives. Bachmann and King are ideological soulmates who share a press secretary. To see who else became a founding Tea Party caucus member, check this list on the Mother Jones blog. You’ll find some famous loudmouths (Joe “You Lie!” Wilson) and “big idea” folks like Paul Broun, who wants to repeal the constitutional amendments that permit the federal income tax and the direct election of U.S. senators.

The Tea Party caucus isn’t just a haven for fringe-y House wingnuts, though. Bachmann’s group attracted GOP leaders including National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence. Whether they’ll manage to harness tea party energy for the bulk of GOP establishment candidates remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, heavy rain continues to batter Iowa this week. I see King joined Iowa’s other U.S. House members in asking President Obama to “quickly approve Gov. Chet Culver’s request for a disaster declaration for Iowa counties” affected by flooding. However, I can’t find any press release from King’s office explaining his vote last week against extending the federal flood insurance program.

UPDATE: King tweeted around 1:30 on Thursday afternoon, “Shirley Sharrod was involved in a collective farm in Georgia. Nation’s largest ($13 million) recipient in Pigford Farms($2 billion) fraud.” He got that information from talk radio host Ben Shapiro.

SECOND UPDATE: King notes in a press release that he has signed on to a “friend of the court” brief defending the state of Arizona’s new immigration law. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed suit against that law. On Fox News yesterday, King gave a theological justification for his position on immigration:

God gave us rights. Our founding fathers recognized that. It’s in our Declaration [of Independence]. It’s the foundational document of America, and God made all nations on earth and He decided when and where each nation would be. And that’s out of the Book of Acts and it’s in other places [in the Bible]. So we can’t be a nation if we don’t have a border, and if we grant amnesty, we can’t define it as a border any longer or ourselves as a nation as a border any longer.

The National Republican Congressional Committee has put all three Iowa GOP Congressional challengers “on the radar,” the bottom rung of the three-tier Young Guns program. Challengers who appear better positioned to win may be bumped up later this year to “contender” or “young gun” status. Only the “young guns” are likely to get significant financial help from the NRCC.

If I were running Brad Zaun’s campaign, I’d start implementing “plan B,” assuming he’s on his own in his race against Representative Leonard Boswell. Iowa’s third district is rated “lean Democratic” by most analysts of the House races, while Iowa’s first and second districts are in the “safe Democratic” column. This spring the NRCC gave Zaun’s primary opponent Jim Gibbons “contender” status. Although the Iowa primary results were in a sense humiliating for the NRCC, I would have expected House Republican leaders to signal in some way that IA-03 (with a partisan voting index of D+1) is a more competitive district than IA-01 (D+5) or IA-02 (D+7). Instead, they give Zaun the same status as Bruce Braley’s challenger Ben Lange and Dave Loebsack’s repeat rival Mariannette Miller-Meeks.

Looking solely at fundraising numbers, which seems to be the NRCC’s main benchmark for candidates, Zaun belongs at the same level as Lange and Miller-Meeks. All three Republicans finished the second quarter with a little more than $100,000 cash on hand, and all face incumbents with much more money in the bank. Iowa politics-watchers generally consider Boswell more vulnerable than Loebsack or Braley, and on paper Zaun is a good candidate. He is an experienced campaigner and has a base in the population center of the district. However, it’s far from clear Zaun will have the resources he needs to be successful. Boswell’s campaign is about to hold its biggest fundraiser yet, featuring President Bill Clinton.

The tough reality for Zaun (and Lange and Miller-Meeks) is that the NRCC doesn’t have a bottomless pit of money to spend on every potentially competitive race. The latest FEC reports from party committees show the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee with $33.8 million cash on hand compared to just $17 million for the NRCC. That’s not even enough to make a serious play in the 40 districts where Republican challengers already have full “young gun” status. Even worse for Iowa’s Republicans, the 14 candidates who got “contender” status this week are also ahead of Zaun, Lange and Miller-Meeks in line for help from the NRCC.

I doubt the NRCC will play much of a role in Iowa until 2012, when at least one of our four newly-drawn Congressional districts may be highly competitive.

Share any thoughts about Iowa’s U.S. House races in this thread.

UPDATE: Get a load of the ridiculous spin from Zaun: “The NRCC has identified our race as a top 30 race in the country.” Sorry, no: there are 40 candidates in the top tier, where the best pickup opportunities lie. Then come the “contenders” (second tier), and finally Zaun and the rest of the “on the radar” bunch.

THURDSAY UPDATE: Reid Wilson of Hotline on Call reports that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is buying tv air time in 17 districts held by Democratic incumbents, including IA-03.

Rarely are secretaries of agriculture near the center of attention in Washington, but Tom Vilsack is in the hot seat after abetting the right-wing noise machine’s latest attempt to undermine the Obama administration. On Monday an African-American US Department of Agriculture official, Shirley Sherrod, was sacked because a right-wing website made her appear to have discriminated against a white farmer.

Sherrod, USDA’s rural development director for Georgia, said she was ordered to resign on Monday after a video, posted on one of Andrew Breitbart’s conservative sites, showed her saying she had not given a white farmer her “full force.”

The NAACP later posted the full, unedited video of Sherrod speaking at an NAACP Freedom Fund Dinner, and it showed the remarks had been taken out of context in the version posted by Breitbart. Breitbart had said that he had posted the full version he was given. The farmer, Roger Spooner, now 87, appeared on CNN from his Georgia home and said Sherrod had been “helpful in every way – she saved our farm.”

Vilsack should know better than to validate a phony right-wing narrative, but he’s never been a happy partisan warrior. I’m not surprised he kicked a USDA official to the curb instead of waiting to hear all the facts. He probably hoped to kill this “news” story before it gained momentum. The problem is, he has created more incentive for Obama’s opponents to gin up fake scandals. Vilsack also damaged his own reputation. Lots of people will want answers to the questions Greg Sargent asks today:

Now that the full Shirley Sherrod video has been released, vindicating her completely, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is  promising to undertake a review of her firing. So maybe he will re-instate her after all.

But it isn’t enough for Vilsack to reinstate her. People should demand that his review include an explanation for his own decision to fire her. We need to hear his justification for the decision to ax this woman before all the facts were in, on the strength of nothing more than an Andrew Breitbart smear.

Did Vilsack make any effort to learn more about her speech before giving her the push? If not, why not? Sherrod says she told top USDA officials that the full speech would vindicate her. Did anyone at USDA give her protestations even a passing listen? Did anyone try to obtain video of the full speech? If not, why not? Why was Breitbart’s word alone allowed to drive such a high-profile decision?

People should also demand that the White House weigh in publicly on what happened here. The White House has only discussed this via anonymous leaks, and this morning, officials are conveniently leaking word that the White House prodded Vilsack to reconsider Sherrod’s firing. That’s nice, but was the White House told in advance that the firing was about to happen, and if so, why did it allow the firing to proceed?

The White House looks bad for supporting Vilsack’s rush to judgment, then backing off when the full video of Sherrod’s remarks appeared. But ultimately, this was Vilsack’s mistake. Let’s hope he learned the right lessons from it.

UPDATE: Charles Lemos posted the full video of Sherrod’s speech and his reaction to it. It’s worth a read.

SECOND UPDATE: Vilsack has apologized and offered Sherrod another USDA position. I’ve posted the video after the jump. Good for him; it’s not always easy for politicians to admit a mistake. TPMDC reported today,

In response to a question from TPMDC, Vilsack called the debacle “a teachable moment for me.” He admitted that Sherrod had received advance notice of Breitbart’s intention to (mis)use the clip and had attempted to inform her superiors, including Vilsack, by email — but the email did not get through, and thus her superiors’ first contact with her regarding the incident was after Breitbart’s release of the clip.

The latest round of statewide and state legislative candidate financial reports are available on the website of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board. For most candidates, these reports cover money raised and spent between June 2 and July 14. Some of the candidates didn’t file a June 4 disclosure report, and in those cases the latest filing covers the period from May 15 to July 14.

Fundraising numbers for Democratic and Republican candidates for statewide offices are after the jump. In addition to money raised and spent and cash on hand figures, I’ve listed the largest donors for each candidate. I am working on a post about the noteworthy fundraising figures from Iowa House and Senate candidates. John Deeth hit some highlights at the Des Moines Register blog. It’s important to remember that leadership committees for both parties will also spend a lot of money in the battleground legislative districts.

Chuck Grassley will vote no when the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up Elana Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court today, he announced today. In a statement, Grassley said Kagan “failed to answer directly” many questions asked during her confirmation hearings. Supreme Court nominees proposed by Republican presidents have likewise declined to answer certain questions in committee, but Grassley said “candid answers” were needed from Kagan because “she has no previous judicial experience.” I posted the full text of Grassley’s statement below. He also told Radio Iowa that Kagan won’t exercise “judicial restraint” and will “let her own private views enter in” as opposed to interpreting the law. (No word on whether he found Kagan to be “aggressive” or “obnoxious.”)

It’s rich to hear Republicans talk about judicial restraint when judicial activism has “become a defining feature of the Roberts Court’s unfolding legacy” (see also here).

Click here to watch a YouTube video of Grassley questioning Kagan during Judiciary Committee hearings in late June. Radio Iowa and Blog for Iowa summarized the exchanges between Grassley and Kagan, which covered guns rights and gay marriage, among other issues.

Grassley voted to confirm both of President Bill Clinton’s nominees for the Supreme Court as well as all judges nominated by Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. Some Iowa conservatives have been grumbling about Grassley in recent years, so perhaps that explains his opposition to confirming Sonia Sotomayor last year and now Kagan.

UPDATE: Media Matters compiled a list of “45 myths and falsehoods” about Kagan’s nomination.

SECOND UPDATE: The Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 to confirm Kagan. All committee Democrats and Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voted yes.

“No one spent more time trying to beat President Obama than I did, except maybe Senator McCain,” Mr. Graham said Tuesday, referring to the 2008 presidential election and Senator John McCain  of Arizona, Mr. Obama’s Republican rival. “I missed my own election – I voted absentee. But I understood: we lost, President Obama won. The Constitution, in my view, puts a requirement on me not to replace my judgment for his.”

Mr. Graham said there were “100 reasons” he could vote against Ms. Kagan if he based his vote on her philosophy, which is at odds with his. But he said she met a time-honored standard for judicial nominees: whether they are qualified and of good character.

As a senator, Mr. Obama adopted a different standard, saying it was permissible to vote against a nominee based on judicial philosophy, not just qualifications. Mr. Graham said that approach undermined the judicial confirmation process, by making it more partisan.

“Something’s changing when it comes to the advice and consent clause,” he said. “Senator Obama was part of the problem, not part of the solution.”

THIRD UPDATE: The reaction from Grassley’s Democratic challenger Roxanne Conlin is after the jump.

Democracy for America, the organization Howard Dean created after his unsuccessful presidential bid in 2004, has officially endorsed Democrat Roxanne Conlin in her campaign against U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley. Blog for Iowa’s Trish Nelson posted the e-mail blast DFA sent to its supporters. Excerpt:

We need to restore a civil political dialogue in Iowa and Roxanne Conlin is exactly what Iowa needs after 30 years of Chuck Grassley. She’s a fighter who will stand up for Iowans, like she did as Assistant Attorney General and U.S. Attorney. When an Iowa teacher was fired for being pregnant, she took that woman’s case all the way to the state Supreme Court – and won.

Roxanne will go the extra mile and it’s that work ethic that is going to earn her the votes to win in November. Now, we need to provide her with the resources to fight back against one of the Senate’s most entrenched Republicans.

Democracy for America has more than a million members, and as of Tuesday morning, the organization had already raised more than $14,000 for Conlin’s campaign. She can use the help, because Grassley has a big cash on hand advantage.

While looking around the DFA site I noticed a lot of support for Francis Thicke’s campaign for secretary of agriculture among DFA’s Iowa members. That network could become an important source of volunteer energy for the Thicke and Conlin campaigns.

Last week I highlighted the half-truths and misleading arguments that underpin Iowa Senate minority leader Paul McKinley’s case against Democratic governance in Iowa. I wasn’t planning to revisit the Republican leader’s fantasy world until I read the July 16 edition of his weekly e-mail blast. McKinley claims to offer five “big ideas” to “make Iowa again a state where jobs and prosperity can flourish.”

His premise is absurd when you consider that CNBC just ranked Iowa in the top 10 states for doing business (again), and number one in terms of the cost of doing business. Many of McKinley’s specific claims don’t stand up to scrutiny either, so follow me after the jump. There’s also a poll at the end of this post.

Candidates for federal offices were required to submit Federal Election Commission reports on campaign fundraising and expenditures by July 15. Those reports covered money raised and spent between May 20 and June 30. “Pre-primary” reports, which were due in late May, covered the period from April 1 through May 19.

The second quarter numbers are particularly important for challengers, who need to show that they will have the resources to wage serious district-wide or statewide campaigns. Although candidates continue to raise money during the third quarter, they typically have less time for fundraising as they spend more time campaigning. Mike Glover of the Associated Press noted, “The cash-on-hand numbers are closely watched by strategists because candidates traditionally use the summer months to build up a cash reserve that they begin spending on television advertisements around Labor Day.”

Follow me after the jump for the second quarter numbers.  

This thread is for anything political or non-political on your mind this weekend. A few safety-related stories caught my attention.

There was a terrible tragedy in Pella as two teenage boys who couldn’t swim drowned during a summer camp outing at the Pella Aquatic Center. Here’s more on one of the boys. The drownings happened in the evening, and the underwater lights in the deep end of the pool hadn’t been working. A lawsuit is pending on that. In addition, the camp organizers didn’t bring waivers to the pool for the party. If they had, someone might have realized that the parents had noted on the waivers that their boys could not swim.

On a related note, “drowning doesn’t look like drowning.” Also, you should always wear flotation devices when boating or working near cold water, even if you think you are a good swimmer.

The New York Times’ room for debate blog ran a good post earlier this month about “what we still don’t know about sunscreens.” It’s confusing to navigate this territory as a parent, because while sunburns can cause real and long-term damage, sunscreens somewhat reduce the amount of vitamin D our bodies produce. I have mostly kept my kids out of the sun during the intense hours of the day and let them play outside for long stretches after 4 pm. Sunscreen isn’t recommended for young babies, so it’s better to keep them out of the sun or covered up if you absolutely need to be outside during the prime hours for sunburns. The Mayo Clinic posts these guidelines for sunscreen use.

The Environmental Working Group’s online database on sunscreen safety and effectiveness is an excellent resource.

The floor is yours.

UPDATE: Democratic candidate Chris Hall (Iowa House district 2 in Sioux City) was out door-knocking today when the heat index was 104. Stay hydrated, hard-working Dems!

Via Howie Klein at DownWithTyranny I learned that the House of Representatives approved a bill on the federal flood insurance program yesterday by a bipartisan 329-90 vote. As you can see from the roll call, 85 Republicans voted with all but one of the Democrats present to pass this bill. Here’s why:

The flood program, an arm of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has for more than four decades offered affordable insurance to more than 20,000 communities that participate in flood damage reduction efforts and to residents in federally designated flood zones. It was created in 1968 because of the reluctance of private insurers to cover flood damage.

Congress has not updated the program since 1994. In the ensuing years the once-solvent program had to pay out some $17 billion in Katrina-related claims and had to deal with FEMA flood zone remapping that has thrust thousands of homes and businesses into areas where they are required to buy flood insurance.

[…] Without congressional action on a long-term bill, the flood program has lapsed three times this year, and [Representative Maxine] Waters said that during those lapses some 1,200 people a day were unable to close on home purchases in flood plains because FEMA could neither write new insurance policies nor renew old ones. The flood program is now running on a short-term extension that expires at the end of September.

FEMA press secretary Rachel Racusen expressed hope that Congress would pass a long-term measure that would strengthen and improve the program. “This program is critical for Americans who need to protect their homes, businesses and livelihoods from flooding,” she said.

Even Republican Tom Latham of Iowa’s fourth Congressional district voted for this bill, and he rarely votes against House Republican leaders.

But wouldn’t you know, Steve King was one of the 89 Republicans who voted no on the flood insurance bill. I wonder how many of his fifth district constituents live in counties affected by flash flooding just a few weeks ago. Maybe King has more pressing things on his mind, like the new “tea party” caucus Michele Bachmann is forming in the House.

The Senate passed the final version of new financial regulations yesterday. Senator Chuck Grassley voted against the cloture motion to allow the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 to come to the floor, and later voted against the bill itself, as did all Senate Republicans except for Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine. Senator Tom Harkin voted to overcome the Republican filibuster attempt and for the bill itself, as did all other Senate Democrats except Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.

Grassley had joined Snowe, Collins and Brown in voting for the Senate’s original financial reform bill in May. After the jump I’ve posted Grassley’s official statement explaining his reasons for opposing the bill that emerged from the House/Senate conference committee.

Statements from Harkin and Grassley’s Democratic opponent, Roxanne Conlin, are also posted below.

Alison Vekshin of Bloomberg News and Annie Lowrey of the Washington Independent briefly summarized the bill’s provisions; click here for the full text. On balance, passing this bill is better than doing nothing, but too many important reforms were excluded from the package or watered down in conference. I also agree with former Clinton cabinet official Robert Reich, who argued here that the bill is too narrow in scope:

The White House and Democratic leaders could have described the overarching goal as overhauling economic institutions that bestow outsize rewards on a relative few while imposing extraordinary costs and risks on almost everyone else. Instead, they have defined the goal narrowly: reducing risks to the financial system caused by particular practices on Wall Street. The solution has thereby shriveled to a set of technical fixes for how the Street should conduct its business.

Share any thoughts about financial reform in this thread. Conlin appears likely to bring this up repeatedly in her campaign against Grassley. One of her campaign’s statements released yesterday noted that so far in this election cycle, “Grassley has taken close to $900,000 in campaign contributions from Wall Street bankers and their PACs.”

UPDATE: House Democrat Barney Frank was one of the key architects of this bill. He discusses some of its high and low points here.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, who is retiring this year, shared some of his parting thoughts with The Fiscal Times:

But I leave more discontented when I came here because of the terrible things that have been done to this economy by political leaders who allowed Wall Street to turn Wall Street banks into gambling casinos which damned near destroyed the economy.

I think the more important thing was what was my biggest failure. I think our biggest failure collectively has been our failure to stop the ripoff of the middle class by the economic elite of this country, and this is not just something that happened because of the forces of the market.

The Iowa Association of Business and Industry’s political arm, the Iowa Industry PAC, released its first round of state legislative endorsements today. According to the PAC’s chairman Kirk Tyler, these “Friends of Iowa Business” have “demonstrated a commitment to improve Iowa’s business climate so that employers can create more jobs and grow the economy.”

During legislative sessions, the Iowa ABI often appears to act as a proxy for the Republican Party of Iowa, so I wasn’t surprised to see that most of Iowa Industry PAC’s favored candidates are Republican incumbents and challengers. But look who else made the list of “Friends of Iowa Business”: Democratic State Representatives McKinley Bailey, Brian Quirk, Doris Kelley, Dave Jacoby, Geri Huser, Larry Marek, and Mike Reasoner, and Democratic State Senators Rich Olive, Wally Horn and Matt McCoy.

Bailey, Quirk, Kelley, Huser and Marek were members of the “six-pack” that blocked passage of a prevailing wage bill in 2009. (The sixth Democrat who refused to support that bill was Dolores Mertz; she is retiring.) Jacoby spoke out against a union-backed “fair share” bill during the 2010 session. Reasoner serves on the House Commerce Committee and was able to keep a payday lending bill stuck in subcommittee during this year’s session.

A few of the Iowa Industry PAC’s endorsements mean little of consequence. Geri Huser and Brian Quirk represent safe Democratic districts, as does Dave Jacoby, whose only opponent is a Libertarian. Horn doesn’t have a Republican opponent either, and McCoy’s GOP challenger is an anti-abortion extremist.

On the other hand, some of the endorsed Democrats are among the GOP’s top targets. First-termer Marek represents the difficult southeast Iowa terrain of House district 89. He squeaked by in 2008 and faces the same opponent for a second time this year, without Barack Obama’s coat-tails.

Republicans also have a registration advantage in House district 9 in north-central Iowa, which Bailey has represented for two terms. The ABI PAC endorsement in this race is even more striking because Bailey’s opponent is Republican heavyweight Stew Iverson, a former Iowa Senate majority leader.

Kelley has represented House district 20 in Waterloo for two terms. Her challenger, Walt Rogers, came within a couple dozen votes of unseating State Senator Jeff Danielson in 2008. This district has a few hundred more registered Republicans than Democrats.

Reasoner is a four-term incumbent from House district 95 in southern Iowa, where Republicans have a registration advantage of nearly 800.

Olive represents Iverson’s old turf, Senate district 5. After Iverson retired in 2006, Olive won this seat by only 62 votes. The GOP has a registration advantage here and desperately needs this district to get back on track toward winning a majority in the Iowa Senate, perhaps in 2012 or 2014.

GOP leaders talk optimistically about winning the Iowa House this year, but that can’t happen unless they beat Marek, Bailey, Kelley, and Reasoner, or at least three out of those four. Republican blogger Craig Robinson discussed the path to taking back the House here.

Share any thoughts about the business lobby or Iowa legislative races in this thread.

UPDATE: John Deeth goes over some of the conspicuous Republican names omitted from the Iowa Industry PAC endorsement list:

Indeed, the only GOP challenger on the House side I see with an ABI endorsement is Dan Rasmussen, making a comeback attempt against Gene Ficken, who knocked him off in 2008. There’s big omissions, starting with Steve Burgmeier, who narrowly lost last year’s Fairfield special to Curt Hanson in House 90. Also forgotten: Guy Vander Linden over Democrat Eric Palmer, in the Oskaloosa-Grinnell seat that’s been hot the last few cycles, and Mark Lofgren in Muscatine’s House 80, challenging Nate Reichert.

So does this mean Republicans are trying to take the House on open seats? Or is ABI, by endorsing the Five Pack, hedging its bets? In either case, the open seat targets include the Sioux City races, Mary Ann Hanusa in Turncoat Doug Struyk’s old turf, and Ross Paustian in Elesha Gayman’s House 84.

And in Waterloo, former mayor John Rooff gets no love in House 21, with a no endorsement over Democrat Anesa Kajtazovic in the open Kerry Burt seat.

Mathematically, the Republicans can’t take back the House on open seats alone. They have to beat at least a few sitting House Democrats.

A thought just occurred to me: Iverson reportedly has close ties to Iowans for Tax Relief, and that outfit ran Burgmeier’s campaign in last year’s House district 90 special election. So maybe some behind the scenes rivalry between ABI and Iowans for Tax Relief is playing out here.