Happy Independence Day! Longtime Bleeding Heartland readers know that I love July 4 parades, and I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s festivities in Windsor Heights. For once they are starting the parade at 3 pm instead of when the sun is strongest at 1 pm. Now let’s hope we don’t get rained out. In the morning I may adopt Charles Lemos’ tradition of listening to the Broadway musical 1776 on this holiday.

What’s your view on Iowa’s restrictive fireworks laws? Libertarians hate it. I think it’s safer to leave the firework displays to professionals. Also, amateurs setting off firecrackers can be disturbing for veterans with PTSD. Troy Patterson takes the opposite view: he doesn’t mind doing “dangerous stuff in your cousin’s backyard” but hates the professional fireworks displays, which he calls “an exercise in pomposity, aggression, triumphalism, and hubris.”

Many non-Iowans are surprised to hear that we usually throw candy at our July 4 parades. Parents, what’s your policy on the big bag of candy your kids collect from politicians and church floats? Do you make your kids ration the sweets out over days or weeks, or do you let them eat as much as they want because hey, it’s a holiday?

I got a kick out of a Twitter exchange today between Grant Young (who writes the Republican blog Questions, Comments & Insults) and Kim Lehman, Iowa’s Republican National Committeewoman. Young re-tweeted a quotation from President Woodrow Wilson: “If you want to make enemies, try to change something.” Lehman replied, “he would say that since he worked to destroy the Republic for socialism. Those were changes that should make enemies.”

There’s the 4th of July spirit: accusing a Democratic president of undermining the country for socialism. In reality, Wilson’s administration presided over a big crackdown on socialists and other leftists, but why let facts get in the way of a good Republican narrative?

Share whatever’s on your mind this weekend here.

Even Terry Branstad’s admirers will tell you the man enjoys campaigning more than governing. He loves touring the state, speaking to groups, working a room. His wife says he’s been “giddy as a schoolgirl” since becoming a candidate again. Sitting governors attend many official events that indirectly serve their re-election ambitions. It’s one of the advantages of incumbency, and it’s fair game.

Using the governor’s office to raise campaign money and conduct campaign activities is a different story. That’s what Branstad and his top staffers did during the 1980s and 1990s, according to several hundred pages of documents Governor Chet Culver’s campaign released this week. I’ve posted the Culver campaign memo with highlights from the Branstad files after the jump. From the accompanying press release:

The documents illustrate how Branstad and members of his Administration participated in campaign fundraising, opposition research and candidate recruitment from the Governor’s office.

Doug Gross, Branstad’s Chief of Staff, was playing a key role in running the Republican Party of Iowa as well as Branstad’s re-election campaign from his office at the Iowa State Capitol. Another member of Branstad’s staff, Jerry Mathiasen, was helping run a Congressional campaign from the Capitol and coordinating the Republican Party’s legislative campaigns. In addition, Branstad’s State-Federal Relations Director, was spending his day working on selling fundraising dinner tables for the Republican Governors Association.

“This is part of clear pattern of dishonesty and scandal,” said [Culver campaign manager Donn] Stanley. “Already during this campaign, Branstad has admitted that, for the majority of his tenure as Governor, the books were never balanced but what’s worse is that by keeping two sets of books, he hid the truth about the state budget from Iowans. While today’s information is new to Iowans, we already knew that, as Governor, he used the state plane for political purposes and held campaign fundraisers shortly after awarding donors multi-million dollar state contracts.”

Whether this activity was illegal at the time or merely unethical is beside the point. Taxpayer dollars fund the salaries of the governor’s staff. It is inappropriate to have the governor’s staff doing campaign work for Branstad and other Republicans on the public’s dime.

The Branstad campaign’s response to this week’s document dump was telling:

“Chet Culver and his campaign can spend their time wallowing in the past, while Terry Branstad is looking to the future and committed to open, honest and transparent government,” [Branstad campaign manager Jeff] Boeyink said. “This attack is as sad and pathetic as Chet Culver’s four years as governor.”

So no denial, no apology, and no promise that Branstad’s policy staff won’t do campaign work in the future. We don’t even get the “learned from my mistakes” line Branstad pulls out whenever someone challenges his dismal fiscal record.

Iowa State Professor Steffen Schmidt told the Des Moines Register, “If I were Branstad I’d probably sleep OK tonight.” Schmidt views this treasure trove of documents as a sign that Culver “may not have too many really sharp angles to come at Branstad.” I wouldn’t be too sure about that. Culver campaign staffers have been going through about 1,000 boxes of material from Branstad’s four terms in office. I doubt they would release all the best stuff before the Fourth of July. We’ve got a long way to go before November.

Final note: Culver’s campaign raised the issue of Branstad’s abuse of power in response to the Republican’s latest tv ad, unveiled this week. The viewer sees clips from Branstad’s rallies and hears Branstad tell the crowd: “We’re all here for one reason: to give Iowans a government that is as honest, as hard-working, that is as good as the people of this state. To those communities fighting to stay alive, to the workers hunting for good jobs, to those families hoping for a better education for their kids, change is coming! For those Iowans who want honest, open and scandal-free government, change is coming! We did it before, and we can do it again!” If Branstad wants to campaign on “honest, open and scandal-free government,” he should be prepared to defend his own record.

UPDATE: The Culver campaign released this statement on July 2:

DOES BRANSTAD BELIEVE HE IS TRULY ABOVE THE LAW?

3 DAYS AND NO RESPONSE ON EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT

DES MOINES – Terry Branstad and his campaign must believe that he and his cronies are above the law because they have yet to admit that using the Governor’s Office to further Branstad’s own political ambitions instead of putting the people’s work first is wrong.

“Branstad has yet to admit any wrong-doing or even promise the people of Iowa that he would avoid abusing the Governor’s Office if elected again. Terry Branstad abused the power of the Governor’s Office and it’s time he admit culpability,” Culver/Judge Communications Director Ali Glisson.

On Wednesday, the Culver/Judge Campaign produced 400 pages of documents showing that Branstad and his closest associates, including Doug Gross, abused the power of the Governor’s Office. Branstad raised money for his campaigns and for the Republican Party of Iowa, using official state stationery, making fundraising calls, and used various staff and state resources for these efforts instead of working for the people of Iowa.

“What Branstad did is wrong and unethical. He put himself above the law and used state resources to further his own political agenda over any efforts to help the people of Iowa.”  

To see all 400 pages of documents released this week by the Culver/Judge Campaign, visit BranstadFacts.com.

Jonathan Narcisse will file to run for governor as an independent, he confirmed yesterday during campaign stops around the state. Narcisse had supported Terry Branstad during the 1980s and Chet Culver’s 2006 gubernatorial campaign, but now believes neither Branstad nor Culver is “offering solutions.” Earlier this year, Narcisse declared that he would challenge Culver in the Democratic primary, but he did not submit signature petitions before the filing deadline. The hurdle for running as an independent is much lower; candidates need to collect only 1,500 signatures and file nominating papers by August 13.

Narcisse has chosen Rick Marlar as his running mate. Marlar finished third with 12 percent in the Republican primary for Iowa Senate district 45. Rod Boshart reported that Narcisse picked Marlar

because they share the same fervor for reform. Marlar, a truck driver for 30 years and former pilot who logged four years in the submarine service, lives on 40 acres near Wayland and understands rural and farm life, he said. Narcisse said Marlar reminded him of another truck driver in Iowa who was successful in gubernatorial politics, Ida Grove native Harold Hughes, who was elected governor and served in the U.S. Senate during his political career.

If Marlar wants to stand up to the Republican establishment, he’d be better off running as an independent in Senate district 45, where Branstad’s close ally Sandy Greiner won the primary easily with 66 percent of the vote.

Narcisse believes he has a shot if he can get into this fall’s debates between the gubernatorial candidates. His campaign strategy:

“Culver and Branstad are going to wage an unprecedented negative campaign. They’re going to just pound each other to a bloody pulp,” Narcisse predicted. “I believe that by the time they get through hammering each other, on Nov. 2, if Iowans could vote for none of the above that none of the above would beat Branstad and Culver. So my job now is to become ‘None Of The Above Narcisse.’”

I don’t ever remember third-party candidates being invited to the Iowa gubernatorial debates. If the media include Narcisse, they would have to include others such as Libertarian Eric Cooper and Constitution Party candidate Rick Phillips. Narcisse will need to raise much more money to run the 99-county campaign he is planning. His May campaign disclosure report filed showed $3,360 in cash contributions, a $5,135 loan, and $2,945 cash on hand.

While Iowa Republicans keep talking down our state’s economy and misleading voters about our fiscal condition, facts and figures compiled by professional analysts paint a different picture.

Links on encouraging revenue projections and economic indicators are after the jump.

Last week the federal departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury “released interim final regulations implementing five of the insurance enrollee protections of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (the official name for the health insurance reform law adopted in March). Timothy Jost analyzed the regulations for the Health Affairs blog, and his whole post is worth reading. While a lot of uncertainty surrounds the new rules, the cost of compliance is expected to be low. Jost finds that “[r]elatively few people will directly benefit” from the health insurance reform, but there will be “[l]arge benefits for those who are affected.”

During the last presidential campaign and more than a year of health care debates on Capitol Hill, countless politicians swore they were committed to ending discrimination against Americans who have pre-existing medical conditions. After reviewing the interim regulations, Jost has good news and bad news for adults who lack health insurance because of a medical problem.

The ban on preexisting conditions exclusion found in the Affordable Care Act is much broader than the preexisting condition exclusion imposed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act [of 1996].  It prohibits any limitation or exclusion of benefits in a group or individual plan based on the prior existence of a medical condition.  The provision not only prohibits the exclusion of coverage of specific benefits based on a preexisting condition, but also the complete exclusion from the plan of a particular person if the exclusion is based on a preexisting condition.   The regulation does not, however, prohibit coverage exclusions that apply regardless of whether a condition is a preexisting condition or not.   The provision applies to enrollees under the age of 19 effective the first plan year beginning after September 23, 2010, but to adults only beginning in 2014.

In the summer of 2009, many progressives were disturbed to learn that the draft House health care bill delayed implementation of the pre-existing condition provision until 2013 (the date was pushed back to 2014 later in the legislative process). Why should Americans with previous or chronic medical problems continue to be denied health insurance for four more years? Don’t worry, we were told: new high-risk pools will be created to bridge the gap for people with pre-existing conditions.

We are now learning more about how the new Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan will operate. Eligible Iowans will be able to start applying for our state’s plan on July 15. But uh oh:

The new program, expected to start in a few weeks, will be financed with $35 million in federal money from the new health care reform law. That money will be enough to help only 975 Iowans, state administrators have concluded.

“$35 million doesn’t cover as many people as you’d hope,” said Susan Voss, Iowa’s insurance commissioner.

Another twist is that Iowans who participate in the state’s current high-risk insurance pool won’t be able to switch into the new pool, which will be significantly less expensive.

Federal experts have estimated that 34,500 Iowans could be eligible for the new pool.

The money is supposed to last until 2014, when private insurers will be banned from discriminating against people with pre-existing health conditions. At that point, such people should be able to buy their own insurance just like anyone else, health reform proponents say.

You see immediately what Jost was getting at: few Iowans with pre-existing conditions will benefit from the new high-risk pool (perhaps 3 percent of the eligible population). For those who get in, though, the benefits are immense: insurance for about the same price a healthy person would pay.

While helping 950 uninsurable Iowans obtain coverage is significant, it would have been better to implement the health insurance reform on a faster timetable. Because Congress lacked the political will to impose significant costs on insurance companies, 97 percent of Iowa adults with pre-existing conditions will have to wait until 2014 to reap the full benefit of the health reform.

That sounds like over-promising and under-delivering to me. But I can’t say I wasn’t warned a long time ago.

UPDATE: Democrats will talk up the health reform changes that take effect sooner, such as new Medicare reimbursement rates. Those are expected to increase payments to Iowa doctors and hospitals. But the public case for health care reform wasn’t built on wonky issues like Medicare reimbursement rates. It was a simple moral argument, and not letting insurers discriminate against people with a pre-existing condition was at its core.  

The House of Representatives approved what’s likely to be the final version of financial reform yesterday, on a mostly party-line vote of 237 to 192 (roll call). Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) voted for the compromise that emerged from a House-Senate conference committee. They had also voted for the original House version last December. Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted against the new regulations on the financial sector. The Senate will take up this bill after senators return from the July 4 recess on July 12.

I haven’t blogged much about financial reform because so many important provisions didn’t make it into the original House bill and/or were ditched during the Senate amendment process. Yesterday Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin blasted the “unholy alliance between Washington and Wall Street”:

I cosponsored a number of critical amendments during Senate consideration of the bill including a Cantwell-McCain amendment to restore Glass-Steagall safeguards, Senator Dorgan’s amendment that addressed the problem of “too big to fail” financial institutions, and another “too big to fail” reform offered by Senators Brown and Kaufman that proposed strict limits on the size of those institutions. Each of those amendments would have improved the bill significantly, and each of them either failed or was blocked from even getting a vote.

After that, it wasn’t a close call for me. It would be a huge mistake to pass a bill that purports to re-regulate the financial industry but is simply too weak to protect people from the recklessness of Wall Street. […]

Since the Senate bill passed, I have had a number of conversations with key members of the administration, Senate leadership and the conference committee that drafted the final bill. Unfortunately, not once has anyone suggested in those conversations the possibility of strengthening the bill to address my concerns and win my support. People want my vote, but they want it for a bill that, while including some positive provisions, has Wall Street’s fingerprints all over it.

In fact, reports indicate that the administration and conference leaders have gone to significant lengths to avoid making the bill stronger. Rather than discussing with me ways to strengthen the bill, for example, they chose to eliminate a levy that was to be imposed on the largest banks and hedge funds in order to obtain the vote of members who prefer a weaker bill. Nothing could be more revealing of the true position of those who are crafting this legislation. They had a choice between pursuing a weaker bill or a stronger one.

While we’re on the subject of those conference talks, which catered to a handful of New England Republicans, here’s a textbook case of Republicans negotiating in bad faith:

This week, Democrats sought to confirm the support of Sen. Scott Brown (R) of Massachusetts, who threatened to vote against the bill if it contained $19 billion in new fees on large banks and hedge funds. House and Senate conferees reconvened to remove that provision, but on Wednesday Senator Brown didn’t commit his vote. He said he plans to evaluate the bill over Congress’s week-long July 4 recess.

During the past few weeks David Waldman wrote an excellent series of posts on the conference process and mechanics. Political junkies should take a look, because this won’t be the last important bill hammered out by a conference committee.

As with health insurance reform, the Wall Street reform bill contains a bunch of good provisions. Chris Bowers lists many of them here. Representatives Braley, Loebsack and Boswell also highlighted steps forward in statements I have posted after the jump. On balance, it’s better for this bill to pass than for nothing to pass. But like health insurance reform, the Wall Street reform bill isn’t going to solve the big systemic problems it was supposed to solve. It’s disappointing that large Democratic majorities in Congress couldn’t produce a better bill than this one, and it’s yet another sign we need filibuster reform in the Senate.

Another parallel between health insurance reform and financial reform is that Republican talking points against it are dishonest.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine warns that recently updated “birth control guidelines released by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) could undermine mothers who want to breastfeed,” I learned from the ByMomsForMoms blog, sponsored by Lansinoh. From the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine’s news release:

“The new guidelines ignore basic facts about how breastfeeding works,” says Dr. Gerald Calnen, President of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine (ABM). “Mothers start making milk due to the natural fall in progesterone after birth. An injection of artificial progesterone could completely derail this process.”

The CDC report, “U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010,” released in the May 28 issue of Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), contains important changes in what constitutes acceptable contraceptive use by breastfeeding women. The criteria advise that by 1 month postpartum the benefits of progesterone contraception (in the form of progestin-only pills, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DPMA) injection, or implants), as well as the use of combined (progestin-estrogen) oral contraceptives outweigh the risk of reducing breastfeeding rates. Previously, progesterone birth control was not recommended for nursing mothers until at least 6 weeks after giving birth, and combined hormonal methods were not recommended before 6 months.

Based on clinical experience, breastfeeding support providers report a negative impact on breastfeeding when contraceptive methods are introduced too early. One preliminary study demonstrated dramatically lower breastfeeding rates at 6 months among mothers who underwent early insertion of progesterone-containing IUDs, compared with breastfeeding rates of mothers who underwent insertion at 6-8 weeks postpartum.

I have met women whose milk supply collapsed after they received a progesterone shot. One acquaintance had successfully nursed previous babies and was never informed by her health care provider that a birth control shot could impede her ability to produce enough milk for her infant.

It’s illogical for the CDC to give its blessing to early postpartum use of hormonal birth control when the federal government has supposedly been trying to promote breastfeeding for more than a decade. Earlier this year, the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity set a goal of having half of U.S. babies breastfed for at least nine months by 2015, and recommended a number of specific policies to help reach that goal. But breastfeeding without a full milk supply is quite difficult no matter how educated the mother is or how supportive her environment. I hope the CDC will revise its guidelines and recommend non-hormonal forms of birth control for women in the early months of breastfeeding.  

House Republican leader John Boehner gave a revealing interview to the conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review this week. He dismissed the need for more financial regulations, saying the draft Wall Street reform bill is like “killing an ant with a nuclear weapon.” Boehner also dabbled in Steve King-style rhetoric, accusing Democrats of “snuffing out out the America that I grew up in.” Then he spoke frankly about Republican priorities:

Boehner had praise, however, for Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan and stepped-up drone attacks in Pakistan. He declined to list any benchmarks he has for measuring progress in the nine-year war, at a time of increasing violence and Obama’s replacement of Gen. Stanley McChrystal with Gen. David Petraeus.

Ensuring there’s enough money to pay for the war will require reforming the country’s entitlement system, Boehner said. He’d favor increasing the Social Security retirement age to 70 for people who have at least 20 years until retirement, tying cost-of-living increases to the consumer price index rather than wage inflation and limiting payments to those who need them.

“We need to look at the American people and explain to them that we’re broke,” Boehner said. “If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you’re retired, why are we paying you at a time when we’re broke? We just need to be honest with people.”

Boehner handed our president the opportunity to highlight the differences between Republicans and Democrats. Last year Boehner advocated a federal spending freeze, which would have made a severe recession much worse. Now this guy still doesn’t understand how serious the 2008 financial crash was. President Barack Obama plans to slam Boehner’s comments about financial reform at a town-hall event today.

Ideally, Obama would also bash Boehner’s plans for entitlement reform. The top House Republican wants to reduce Social Security benefits for future recipients in order to keep us on a war footing indefinitely. In other words, make working Americans pay the bills for endless war.

Unfortunately, our president seems less and less committed to a timeline for ending the war in Afghanistan. David Dayen predicts, probably correctly, that the July 2011 deadline for drawing down troops in Afghanistan will disappear now that General David Petraeus has replaced General Stanley McChrystal as commander in the theater.

Obama’s unlikely to go to the mat to preserve Social Security either, having just appointed Republican Alan Simpson to co-chair a deficit commission. Simpson wasn’t serious about addressing the budget deficit as a U.S. senator, and his “zombie lies” about Social Security are notorious.

I never expected Obama to be a partisan warrior, but if he can’t be bothered to help build the Democratic brand, could he at least protect Social Security, one of the greatest programs the Democratic Party ever created?

UPDATE: The president shouldn’t count on Americans supporting endless war in Afghanistan.

Markos Moulitsas fired Research 2000 as the pollster retained by Daily Kos a few weeks ago after R2K fared poorly in “pollster ratings” compiled by FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver. At the time I wondered whether Markos reacted a bit harshly, since Silver himself admitted, “The absolute difference in the pollster ratings is not very great.” In addition, some polling experts had raised questions about Silver’s rating system (see also here).

Today Markos published a remarkable analysis of “problems in plain sight” with Research 2000’s polling. Three researchers uncovered “extreme anomalies” in certain results and concluded, “We do not know exactly how the weekly R2K results were created, but we are confident they could not accurately describe random polls.” You should click over and read the whole thing, but here are the anomalies in question:

  1. A large set of number pairs which should be independent of each other in detail, yet almost always are either both even or both odd.

  2. A set of polls on separate groups which track each other far too closely, given the statistical uncertainties.

  3. The collection of week-to-week changes, in which one particular small change (zero) occurs far too rarely. This test is particularly valuable because the reports exhibit a property known to show up when people try to make up random sequences.

Markos has renounced “any post we’ve written based exclusively on Research 2000 polling” and asked polling sites to “remove any Research 2000 polls commissioned by us from their databases.”

Based on the report of the statisticians, it’s clear that we did not get what we paid for. We were defrauded by Research 2000, and while we don’t know if some or all of the data was fabricated or manipulated beyond recognition, we know we can’t trust it. Meanwhile, Research 2000 has refused to offer any explanation.

This analysis only covered R2K’s weekly national tracking polls for Daily Kos, but based on the findings I no longer have confidence in R2K’s state polling either, including various Iowa polls I’ve discussed at Bleeding Heartland. Some of those were commissioned by Daily Kos, and others were commissioned by KCCI-TV, the CBS affiliate in Des Moines.

Last year the Strategic Vision polling firm was brought down by convincing allegations that at least some of its polling results had been fabricated. Research 2000 had a much better reputation than Strategic Vision, though. Markos listed some of the news organizations that have commissioned R2K polls. I am seeking comment from KCCI News Director Dave Busiek about the company’s future plans regarding polls, and I’ll update this post when I hear back from him.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: Daily Kos is suing Research 2000 for fraud, and R2K has issued a cease and desist letter to Silver’s blog FiveThirtyEight.com.

WEDNESDAY UPDATE: Mark Blumenthal contacted a forensic data guru for his take on the statistical anomalies. Excerpt:

[Walter] Mebane says he finds the evidence presented “convincing,” though whether the polls are “fradulent” as Kos claims “is unclear…Could be some kind of smoothing algorithm is being used, either smoothing over time or toward some prior distribution.”

When I asked about the specific patterns reported by Grebner, et. al., he replied:

   

None of these imply that no new data informed the numbers reported for each poll, but if there were new data for each poll the data seems to have been combined with some other information—which is not necessarily bad practice depending on the goal of the polling—and then jittered.

In other words, again, the strange patterns in the Research 2000 data suggest they were produced by some sort of weighting or statistical process, though it is unclear exactly what that process was.

JULY 4 UPDATE: Mark Blumenthal reviews what we know so far about this “troubling” story at Pollster.com.

A friendly reminder to Iowa Democrats: candidates for federal offices face an important fundraising deadline tomorrow. If you are able, please consider donating to one of our Congressional candidates before midnight on June 30:

Roxanne Conlin for U.S. Senate

Bruce Braley for Congress (IA-01)

Dave Loebsack for Congress (IA-02)

Leonard Boswell for Congress (IA-03)

Bill Maske for Congress (IA-04)

Matt Campbell for Congress (IA-05)

This quarter I have donated to Conlin, Maske, Campbell and Boswell. I made my contribution to Boswell’s re-election campaign before he advocated for big telecom companies over the public interest on net neutrality. I probably won’t give him any more money, but he’s still a lot better than his Republican opponent, the not very well-informed Brad Zaun. The next FEC reports from Boswell and Zaun will be particularly important: a huge advantage for Boswell lengthens the odds of the cash-strapped National Republican Congressional Committee spending heavily for Zaun this fall. The NRCC simply does not have enough money to make a difference in every competitive U.S. House race.

Democratic candidate for Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Francis Thicke is touring the state to talk about his just-published book, “A New Vision for Food and Agriculture.” He’s scheduled to speak in Oskaloosa on June 29, Marion on June 30, Storm Lake on July 1, Dubuque on July 6 and Mason City on July 13. All events are at 6:30 pm; click here for location details.

Thicke provides a brief outline of his vision on his campaign website:

   * Encourage the installation of farmer-owned, mid-size wind turbines on farms all across Iowa, to power farms, and help to power the rest of Iowa. I will lead in advocating feed-in tariffs, which are agreements with power companies that will allow farmers to sell their excess power, finance their turbines, and make a profit from their power generation.

   * Make Iowa farms more energy self-sufficient and put more biofuel profits in farmers’ pockets by refocusing Iowa’s biofuel investment on new technologies that will allow farmers to produce biofuels on the farm to power farm equipment, and sell the excess for consumer use.

   * Create more jobs and economic development by supporting local food production. We can grow more of what we eat in Iowa. Locally-grown food can be fresher, safer and healthier for consumers, and will provide jobs to produce it. I will reestablish the Iowa Food Policy Council to provide guidance on how to connect farmers to state institutional food purchases and greater access to consumer demand for fresh, locally-grown produce.

   * Expose predatory practices by corporate monopolies. We need Teddy Roosevelt-style trust busting to restore competition to agricultural markets. I will work with Iowa’s Attorney General and the Justice Department to ensure fair treatment for farmers.

   * Reestablish local control over CAFOs, and regulate them to keep dangerous pollutants out of our air and water, and protect the health, quality of life, and property values of our citizens.

   * Promote wider use of perennial and cover crops to keep Iowa’s rich soils and fertilizer nutrients from washing into our rivers.

Not only is Thicke highly qualified to implement this vision, he walks the walk, as you can see from a brief video tour of his dairy farm.

Near the beginning of that clip, Thicke observes, “Energy is a big issue in agriculture. We are highly dependent upon cheap oil if you look at agriculture almost anywhere in this country. And that’s one of the big issues in my campaign: how we can make agriculture more energy self-sufficient, make our landscape more resilient, and make our agriculture more efficient as well.” It’s sad that our current secretary of agriculture has shown no leadership on making this state’s farm economy more self-sufficient. Using renewable energy to power Iowa farm operations isn’t pie in the sky stuff: it’s technologically feasible and is a “common-sense way” to cut input costs.

I highly recommend going to hear Thicke speak in person, but you can listen online in some of the videos available on Thicke’s YouTube channel. The campaign is on Facebook here and on the web at Thickeforagriculture.com. If you want to volunteer for or help his campaign in any way, e-mail Thicketeam AT gmail.com. Here’s his ActBlue page for those who can make a financial contribution.

The Iowa Democratic Party’s State Central Committee elected Sue Dvorsky the new IDP chair on June 27. No one challenged her for the leadership position, and the vote was unanimous. Dvorsky had been serving as acting chair since the previous IDP leader, Michael Kiernan, stepped down earlier this month for health reasons.  Background from an IDP press release of June 28:

Sue Dvorsky, 55, recently retired from teaching special education in Iowa City for 30 years.  She was instrumental in Tom Vilsack’s historic election in 1998 and has been a tireless advocate for Democrats her entire life. She lives in Coralville with her husband Senator Bob Dvorsky and their daughters Ann and Caroline.

Michael Kiernan, 35, was elected Chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party in February of 2009 and served until resigning in June of 2010. Kiernan ran Governor Chet Culver’s campaign for Secretary of State before serving two successful terms as an At-Large Councilman in Des Moines. He was born and raised in Madison County, Iowa.

I wish Dvorsky every success in her new position and encourage Iowa Democrats to get involved in at least one competitive race this year. We have so many good candidates running for Congress, statewide offices as well as the Iowa House and Senate. They can all use volunteer help (and of course donations from those who can afford to give). Almost every weekend there are opportunities to help with door-knocking, pancake breakfasts, parades, county fairs and other events.  

Now that State Senator Kim Reynolds is officially the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, it’s time for her political views to receive more scrutiny. On the day Terry Branstad announced he had picked Reynolds, she said this:

We have a projected state budget gap of nearly $1 billion dollars.  And we have seen a dramatic slide in student test scores and teacher layoffs in school districts across the state. We can do better.  We must do better.  And, as Terry Branstad’s running mate, I will dedicate my every waking minute to sharing with Iowans his ambitious goals for our future.

She repeated those talking points in her speech to the GOP state convention on June 26. Republicans never tire of the “projected state budget gap” ruse. Reynolds is talking about projections for the budget year that begins in July 2011. Maybe she forgot that the Democratic-controlled legislature passed a balanced budget for the fiscal year beginning on July 1 despite a projected $1 billion shortfall last November. Reynolds also asserted that Governor Chet Culver has “spent too much, taxed too much, borrowed too much” and dismissed Iowa’s AAA bond rating as irrelevant: “That’s like my husband telling me, our checkbook and savings are empty, but we’ve got $15,000 we can still spend on the credit card.” Not really, Senator Reynolds: Iowa has money left in our state reserve funds (equivalent to a family’s savings account), and independent analysts affirm that our fiscal health is strong coming out of the worst recession since World War II. Many states fully depleted their rainy day accounts in response to an unprecedented drop in state revenues, but Iowa did not.

Like Branstad, Reynolds laments teacher layoffs across the state, and like Branstad, she fails to acknowledge that those education cuts would have been much deeper without the federal stimulus money Iowa has received.

Branstad’s not a numbers guy and hated tough budget meetings when he was governor. Having served four terms as Clarke County treasurer, Reynolds should feel more comfortable talking specifics on state spending. Friends have said she was able to save money as a county treasurer without cutting services. She’s campaigning with a guy who promises to veto any bill that calls for spending more than 99 percent of state revenues collected. Let’s see Reynolds produce an alternative budget for the current year that protects K-12 education without “spending too much.”

Details on the budget for fiscal year 2011 can be found here. All Reynolds needs to do is figure out how to spend no more than 99 percent of state revenues projected for the year. In other words, balance the budget without using the $328 million in federal stimulus money (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds) and the $267 million in reserve funds that Democrats included in the budget Culver signed into law.

If Reynolds is prepared to criss-cross the state bashing Democrats over teacher layoffs, she should be prepared to show us the education budget Iowans could expect under a Branstad administration.

The Republican Party of Iowa held its state convention today, but it wasn’t the unity-fest Terry Branstad was hoping for.

Representative Steve King nominated Kim Reynolds for lieutenant governor, and Reynolds emphasized socially conservative stands in her speech to the convention. Former gubernatorial candidate Rod Roberts declined efforts to nominate him for lieutenant governor, endorsing the Branstad/Reynolds ticket.

State Representative Dwayne Alons (not the sharpest knife in the Republican drawer) nominated Bob Vander Plaats for lieutenant governor, saying, “This nomination is not about one person, one man or one individual. I believe I am speaking for a grassroots effort that has been going on since the beginning of Bob’s campaign.” Vander Plaats took up the challenge:

“I fully understand and respect Gov. Branstad’s ability to recommend to [the delegates] who he wants as his lieutenant governor,” Vander Plaats said in an address to the Republican Party of Iowa Convention. “But it would be hypocritical of me to spend more than a year championing government by the people, of the people and for the people and then ignore the will of the people.”

The final delegate vote was 749 for Reynolds, 579 for Vander Plaats. I’m surprised Reynolds only managed about 56 percent of the delegate votes. I expected her to do better, especially after State Rep Kent Sorenson endorsed Reynolds for lieutenant governor last night. Sorenson thinks Chuck Grassley is too moderate and was such a passionate supporter of Vander Plaats for governor that he vowed in January never to vote for Branstad under any circumstances. As far as I know, Sorenson still hasn’t officially endorsed Branstad for governor, but I imagine he will have to do so if he doesn’t want to lose moderate Republican support in his campaign for Iowa Senate district 37 this fall. I stand by my prediction that Vander Plaats won’t run for governor as an independent.

Branstad made a lot of promises in his speech to Republican delegates. For instance, he again said he’ll veto any budget that spends more than 99 percent of projected state revenues. When will Branstad show Iowans how he would have balanced the current-year budget without using any money from federal stimulus funds or the state reserves?

Branstad promised to reverse former Governor Tom Vilsack’s executive order allowing convicted felons to get their voting rights back, although this liveblog suggests he wrongly attributed that executive order to current Governor Chet Culver. Putting more restrictions on voting rights would help Iowa Republicans, in part because of the enormous racial disparity in Iowa prisons. I would like more details on whether Branstad would let any felons apply for their voting rights. If his running mate deserved the chance to stay in public life after two drunk driving citations, then surely others who have served their time should have the chance to exercise their voting rights.

This thread is for anything on your mind this weekend. Anyone spent time at the downtown art festival? I hope to swing by tomorrow after I hit the art show at the fairgrounds.

UPDATE: Your unintentional comedy of the day comes from The Iowa Republican blog’s top story for Monday, titled, “A Stronger Republican Party Emerges From Contentious Convention”. Here’s the lead paragraph by Craig Robinson:

Don’t believe what you are reading in the newspaper or what you are seeing on the local news. The Republican Party in Iowa isn’t divided. It’s not coming off of a contentious convention. It matured and now is poised to make huge gains in November.

But Craig, you just described the convention as “contentious” in your own headline. How anyone  would try to spin Saturday’s events as the sign of a party not divided is completely beyond me.

Branstad had some tough words for Vander Plaats on Monday: “Remember that the person who opposed [Reynolds] for the nomination has been running here for 10 years, has probably spoken to everyone in that room 10 times,” Branstad said. “We took the risk of going to the most conservative base of our party, and we won it fair and square, just like I won the primary fair and square.”

The head of Mike Huckabee’s HUCK PAC, Hogan Gidley, told the Washington Post, “It would be disrespectful to Mr. Vander Plaats and to many of Governor Huckabee’s friends and supporters in Iowa if he were to endorse Governor Branstad without Mr. Vander Plaat’s [sic] having already done so.”

Meanwhile, the Cedar Rapids Gazette’s Todd Dorman wins the prize for headline of the week: “Branstad Handles the Vander Pout.”

The “knockout” round of 16 at the World Cup begins today. In a few minutes South Korea will play Uruguay. Uruguay is favored to win, but South Korea is extremely fit and played well together as a team in the early round. The winner of that match will meet the winner of the U.S. vs Ghana, which takes place this afternoon (central time). Ghana happens to be the team that ended our World Cup in 2006.

From the commentary I heard yesterday, no team is strongly favored in the U.S./Ghana match. The crowd will probably be mostly cheering for Ghana, as they are the only African team to advance to the knockout round. Ivory Coast is considered the best African team, but they had a very tough break at this World Cup, ending up in the “group of death” with Brazil and Portugal. South Africa just barely missed out on advancing to the knockout stage.

The best-ever showing for the U.S. at a World Cup was in 2002, when we advanced to the round of 8. We have a lucky draw this year, because as strong as Uruguay and South Korea are, we have a much better chance against them in a quarter-final than we would again, say, Brazil or Spain or Germany.

The biggest surprise for me in this World Cup is that France and Italy both failed to advance out of the group stage. Those two teams met in the championship game four years ago.

Share any World Cup thoughts in this thread, and check out Tanya Keith’s “Soccer…Family Style” blog for a view from the ground in South Africa. If you like watching sports in large groups, here are some places in the Des Moines area to watch the World Cup.

UPDATE: Missed this morning’s match, but my family watched Uruguay beat South Korea 2-1. Watching the U.S.-Ghana match now. We got outplayed in the first half but almost scored at the start of the second half, so maybe some magic will happen.

LATE UPDATE: Disappointing outcome, but you can’t say Ghana didn’t deserve to win that game. The U.S. had many chances in the second half to score the winning goal after Landon Donovan equalized with that penalty kick. You can’t expect to win at the World Cup without converting the kind of opportunities we had. Then we let Ghana get the jump on us in the extra time. Maybe team USA will have better luck in Brazil in 2014.

Bob Vander Plaats had a strong showing in the Republican primary for governor, winning 41 percent of the vote despite being massively outspent by Terry Branstad. He hasn’t endorsed Branstad yet, and the post-primary meeting between the two candidates reportedly “did not go well”. That sparked chatter about Vander Plaats running for governor as an independent candidate. He ruled out that option during the Republican primary campaign, but notably has said nothing during the past week to dispel the rumors. I figured he was trying to keep Branstad guessing in the hope that Branstad would choose a Vander Plaats loyalist as a running mate (perhaps retiring State Representative Jodi Tymeson). But no one from the Vander Plaats camp even made Branstad’s short list, and the final choice, Kim Reynolds, looks straight out of the playbook of the religious right’s nemesis Doug Gross.

Vander Plaats will be the featured guest on Steve Deace’s WHO radio program today at 5 pm, on the eve of the Iowa GOP’s state convention in Des Moines. Like Terry Branstad, I won’t be listening to Deace’s show, but I do enjoy a little scenario spinning about the options facing Vander Plaats.

UPDATE: Vander Plaats said he hasn’t decided yet whether to run as an independent candidate. First thoughts on his comments today are after the jump.

Lots of people have asked me this spring when EMILY’s List is going to get behind Roxanne Conlin’s campaign for U.S. Senate. Now we have our answer:

For Immediate Release

June 25, 2010

EMILY’s List Endorses Roxanne Conlin for United States Senate

WASHINGTON, D.C. – EMILY’s List, the nation’s largest financial resource for women candidates, today announced its endorsement of Roxanne Conlin in her campaign for the Unites States Senate.

“EMILY’s List is thrilled to announce our support for Roxanne Conlin in her campaign to be Iowa ‘s next United States Senator. Roxanne has proven time and again that she is a strong and determined advocate for the people of Iowa ,” said Stephanie Schriock , president of EMILY’s List. “This year, more than ever, is it crucial that we elect smart, effective and capable leaders to take on powerful special interests and those who put corporations over American families. Roxanne Conlin has been fighting for families her entire career. She is not afraid to take on big challenges and stand up for Iowans in the court room or on the Senate floor. EMILY’s List is proud to endorse Roxanne Conlin for the United States Senate.”

“Chuck Grassley has served in Congress for over three decades. Three decades of taking more money from PACs than he has from people.  Iowans don’t need a career politician concerned with his next election,” Schriock continued. “Roxanne is a former United States attorney, Democratic nominee for governor, the first woman president of the American Association for Justice, and a grandmother who is concerned about the next generation, who is poised to move this seat to the Democratic column in November.”

A lifelong champion for women’s rights, Conlin founded and was the first chair of the Iowa Women’s Political Caucus, the president of NOW’s Legal Defense and Education Fund and, while serving as Iowa ‘s assistant attorney general, she wrote the first law of its kind protecting rape victims. Conlin later served as United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, where she worked with law enforcement, led major drug busts and cracked down on violent crime.

EMILY’s List is the nation’s largest resource for women candidates. In the 2007-2008 cycle, EMILY’s List raised more than $43 million to support its mission of recruiting and supporting women candidates, helping them build strong campaigns, and mobilizing women voters to turn out and vote. Since its founding in 1985, EMILY’s List has worked to elect 80 pro-choice Democratic women to the U.S. House, 15 to the U.S. Senate, nine governors, and hundreds of women to the state legislatures, state constitutional offices, and other key local offices.

For more information on EMILY’s List, please visit www.emilyslist.org.

This endorsement is bound to further raise Conlin’s profile on the national scene and bring in more donations from around the country.

This week the Cook Political Report moved its rating on this race from safe Republican to likely Republican. That’s where most other election forecasters, including Swing State Project, have had the race for some time.

The big event in central Iowa the last weekend in June is the Des Moines Arts Festival downtown, which runs Friday through Sunday. The festival is fantastic for art lovers, but I prefer the “other art show,” which takes place Saturday and Sunday in the Varied Industries Building at the State Fairgrounds. That show is more like a craft fair and has lots of affordable art, jewelry, woodworking and clothing. I like buying blank note cards created by Iowa painters and photographers. Both art shows have craft activities for kids.

Follow me after the jump for the rest of the calendar for the coming week. As always, post a comment or send me an e-mail if you know of an event I’ve left out. Iowa Democrats, please let me know about your planned public events, including fundraisers, canvassing, news conferences, and open houses. Send an e-mail with event details to desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.  

A string of prominent Iowa Republicans spoke out today praising Terry Branstad’s choice of State Senator Kim Reynolds for lieutenant governor. IowaPolitics.com posted the Branstad campaign’s press releases with encouraging words from Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn, Iowa Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley, Iowa House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen, former Congressional candidate and tea party favorite Dave Funk, former gubernatorial candidate Christian Fong, and Iowa’s representatives on the Republican National Committee, Steve Scheffler and Kim Lehman. Scheffler heads the Iowa Christian Alliance, and Lehman is a past president of Iowa Right to Life.

The Branstad campaign is anxious to avoid an embarrassing display of support for Bob Vander Plaats at this Saturday’s Republican state convention. Today they hit convention delegates with an e-mail blast and robocalls stressing Reynolds’ “conservative credentials.” The strong words from Scheffler and Lehman in support of the ticket may prevent any media narrative from developing about religious conservatives rejecting Branstad. The Iowa Family Policy Center (viewed by many as a rival to the Iowa Christian Alliance) backed Bob Vander Plaats in the Republican primary and vowed not to endorse Branstad against Democratic Governor Chet Culver. That group recently affirmed that Branstad would need to undergo a “fundamental transformation” to win their support in the general election campaign.

Lehman wrote at the Caffeinated Thoughts blog today that Reynolds’ “record speaks for itself.” Lehman’s long list of conservative bills co-sponsored by Reynolds in the Iowa Senate impressed Caffeinated Thoughts blogmaster Shane Vander Hart. He supported Rod Roberts for governor and was a leader of the petition drive lobbying Branstad to choose Roberts as his running mate.

To my mind, Reynolds’ record in the Iowa Senate says only that she sticks with the consensus in the Republican caucus. She has not taken any unusual positions or been outspoken on any major issues under consideration. An acquaintance I spoke with today, who spends a lot of time at the capitol every year during the legislative session, had not even heard of Reynolds before this week. That’s how low her profile has been during her two years at the statehouse. Reynolds may be a reliable back-bencher for conservatives, but I don’t see her as a strong advocate for the religious right. She doesn’t have the stature to drive the agenda if Branstad is elected. Like Todd Dorman wrote yesterday, the lieutenant governor gets to do “whatever the governor lets you do. And in a Branstad administration, if the past is an indicator, his mate will be the special director of the Department of Not Much.”

Nor is there any indication that Reynolds would urge Branstad to make social issues a priority. I think this pick indicates the business wing of the Iowa GOP is fully in charge–or at least one faction in that wing. Others in the business community appear to have been pushing for Jeff Lamberti or Jim Gibbons to be selected as Branstad’s running mate.

Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge spoke about Reynolds today on behalf of the Culver campaign. She suggested that Reynolds may not help Branstad with the social conservatives who supported other candidates for governor, because she “comes out of the same camp as Terry and Doug Gross rather than out of the camp of Bob Vander Plaats or Mr. Roberts.” In a press release and news conference, Judge also emphasized that we don’t know much about Reynolds’ views on key issues, and that her learning curve will be steep, because she has relatively little experience at the statewide level: “It will take a lot of study on Kim’s part. […] If [Branstad] keeps her in the basement in a small office as he did [former Lieutenant Governor] Joy Corning, then she’s not going to have much of an opportunity to know what’s going on.” Say what you will about Patty Judge (I’m not a fan), but she did have a strong legislative record and eight years of holding statewide office going into the 2006 campaign. She has had real influence on policy in the Culver administration.

Being a blank slate may have its advantages, however. Iowa State University Professor Steffen Schmidt thinks Reynolds was a good choice because she is so unknown that she won’t turn voters off or take attention away from Branstad.

Share any thoughts about the Branstad/Reynolds ticket in this thread.

UPDATE: Jason Hancock pointed out at Iowa Independent:

Kim Lehman, another member of the Republican National Committee and formerly president of Iowa Right to Life, praised Reynolds’ selection and her legislative record, ticking through each of the bills she has sponsored since entering the state Senate in 2008 and concluding, “Reynolds went into office and took the bull by the horns and got busy.”

However, a closer look at the bills Reynolds signed on to reveals she only sponsored one piece of legislation on her own – a requirement that the Department of Natural Resources develop depredation plans to fill harvest quotas of antlerless deer in each county that have not been met at the end of the last established deer hunting season each year.

Other than that, she nearly always joins with all or a large majority of the state Senate’s 18 Republicans to push bills.

FRIDAY UPDATE: Reynolds gave an interview to Kathie Obradovich and spoke about being a recovering alcoholic. This is not going to be an issue.

The Branstad campaign is trying to counter opposition to Reynolds over her support for a recreational lake project that angered some property rights advocates. Today the campaign released an endorsement from State Representative Jeff Kaufmann, who tried to intervene in that dispute on the side of property owners.

“I remain dedicated to the fight for private property rights in this state,” said Kaufmann. “The last four years of Democratic control of the Legislature has yielded no strengthening of these rights.  The Democratic majority has not allowed debate of a single property rights bill despite overwhelming support for the 2006 landmark legislation.”

“Our attempts to protect property rights will be thwarted, as usual, by Governor Culver and Democratic leadership without Republican control of the Legislature,” added Kaufmann. “To me, all other property rights discussions are secondary to that goal.  I look forward to working with Kim Reynolds in the future to protect property owners in the future.”

The Branstad campaign also sent conservative blogger Shane Vander Hart a statement from Reynolds about eminent domain:

I fully support the 2006 legislation that curtailed the use of eminent domain to take private property. I do not support eminent domain for commercial development purposes. I support eminent domain only for essential public services.

That answer satisfied Vander Hart. However, one issue with these recreational lake projects (like ones proposed for Page County, Clarke County and Madison County in recent years) is that the advocates will claim the land grab serves an essential public service, like providing more drinking water. However, analysts dispute whether the lake is really needed as a drinking water source, or whether that’s a ruse to obscure the real goal behind the project. A few people stand to make a lot of money if the farmland they own can be developed as lakeshore property. So the question is whether the state would allow other people’s farmland to be condemned in order to create a lake that’s basically a private commercial development.

Terry Branstad made it official this morning, picking State Senator Kim Reynolds to be the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor. Reynolds is a former Clarke County treasurer and past president of the Iowa county treasurer’s association who was elected in 2008 to represent Senate district 48 in southern Iowa. The Des Moines Register’s Tom Beaumont published more background on Reynolds here. His piece depicts her as “solid on core GOP issues” and “focused on economic development.”

Looks like Branstad has picked precisely the kind of candidate his former chief of staff Doug Gross would want on the Republican ticket.