Terry Branstad’s campaign is building up suspense surrounding his choice for lieutenant governor, promising to reveal the name first to those who sign up for campaign texts. Before that happens, I thought I’d invite Bleeding Heartland readers to another round of scenario spinning.

A unity ticket of Branstad and Bob Vander Plaats, who won 40 percent of the votes in the GOP primary, was never in the cards. I see that Branstad supporter Craig Robinson is making sure everyone hears that Vander Plaats allegedly demanded the lieutenant governor slot as his price for not running as an independent candidate. Making Vander Plaats into the bad guy now will help Branstad’s people discredit him if he tries to run as a spoiler. I’ll have more to say on that in a future post, but I can’t see how Vander Plaats could organize or finance a third-party bid. His key staffer, Eric Woolson, just took a job with Senator Chuck Grassley’s re-election campaign.

Getting back to Branstad’s running mate, the obvious choice is Rod Roberts, who finished a distant third in the June 8 primary. He was the best surrogate Branstad could have hoped for during the primary campaign, and the two men acted friendly toward each other during the third gubernatorial debate. A bunch of Republicans, mostly from western Iowa, are lobbying Branstad to pick Roberts, but Roberts is wisely not begging for the job in public.

Roberts might reassure some social conservatives about Branstad’s intentions, but a different way to unify the party would be to choose someone who endorsed Vander Plaats for governor. Retiring State Representative Jodi Tymeson might fit the bill; she co-chaired the Vander Plaats campaign and probably would have been his running mate had he pulled off an upset in the primary. My hunch is that Branstad won’t pick a Vander Plaats supporter. If Branstad felt he needed a Vander Plaats loyalist by his side to win in November, things might be different, but recent polls may have reassured him that he can choose whomever he wants. Why reward someone who was in the opposing camp?

Some people expect Branstad to pick a running mate from eastern Iowa, because about two-thirds of this state’s voters live east of I-35. Plenty of current and former state legislators from eastern Iowa endorsed Branstad during the primary campaign. I wouldn’t rule out former gubernatorial candidate Christian Fong either. He didn’t endorse anyone before the June 8 primary, but key backers of his brief campaign, notably Iowans for Tax Relief, got behind Branstad. Fong would bring generational balance to the ticket. He has been building a new organization, the Iowa Dream Project, which is seeking to increase youngish conservative voter turnout. Since Branstad is copying the Obama campaign’s tactic for getting people to sign up for text messages, why not pick a running mate who is well-versed in Obama-style campaign rhetoric?

On the other hand, Craig Robinson has argued that Branstad doesn’t need help in the east, where he did well in the primary. Branstad’s worst performance was in central Iowa, so Robinson argues that Branstad needs a running mate who’s a social conservative well-known in central Iowa. He pushes former State Senator Jeff Lamberti, who might have beaten Leonard Boswell in a better year for Republicans, and unsuccessful Congressional candidate Jim Gibbons. (But wait, I thought Coach Gibbons “burned the boats!”) Other possibilities named by Robinson include former state legislator Carmine Boal, who has been policy director for the current Branstad campaign. Robinson didn’t suggest Tymeson or any Vander Plaats endorser, as far as I am aware.

Several members of the business community made Robinson’s “short list” for Branstad running mates, including Doug Reichardt, whose name I kept hearing in this context last fall, and Vermeer Corporation CEO Mary Andringa. Last year there was some speculation Andringa would run for governor herself.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? Who would be a smart lieutenant governor pick for Branstad, and whom will he choose?

UPDATE: Tom Beaumont published a piece on Branstad’s running mate in the Sunday Des Moines Register. Christian Fong says Branstad hasn’t called him, which probably means he is not under serious consideration. (Branstad plans to announce his choice before the June 26 Iowa GOP state convention.) Also off the short list, according to Beaumont, are Vermeer CEO Andringa and former State Senator Chuck Larson.

However, former State Senator Jeff Lamberti is being considered and told the Register that while he is “certainly not looking for a job,” it “would be pretty hard to say no” if asked to be lieutenant governor. Jim Gibbons is also apparently on the list, and he is looking for a job, because he quit his last job to run for Congress.

Beaumont’s article indicates that Branstad is considering Rod Roberts, Iowa GOP chair Matt Strawn and State Senator Kim Reynolds of Osceola (Senate District 48). I know little about Reynolds and don’t see the advantage of choosing her over someone like Carmine Boal or Sandy Greiner, who have worked closely with Branstad. Reynolds is the only elected official I know of who has a protected Twitter account that points to a spammy-looking website.

The Senate version of a bill designed to create jobs, support state budgets and extend various tax credits and benefit programs failed to overcome a Republican filibuster yesterday. Tom Harkin was among 56 members of the Democratic caucus who voted for the cloture motion (which would end debate on the bill), but Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted with all the Republicans present, including Chuck Grassley, to kill the bill (roll call here). Joan McCarter observed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

voted yes, without changing his vote, signaling that this iteration of the bill is indeed dead.

Reid followed the vote by attempting to pass the emergency provisions of the bill, the “doc fix,” unemployment benefits extension, and FMAP as well as the homebuyer tax credit, as separate bills under unanimous consent. McConnell objected to each, so we’re stuck in further limbo.

Extending unemployment benefits should be a no-brainer when the percentage of unemployed Americans who have been out of work for more than six months is higher “than at any time since the government began keeping track in 1948.” Without the “doc fix,” medical providers’ reimbursements for Medicare patients stand to drop about 20 percent. FMAP stands for Federal Medical Assistance Percentage funding, relating to federal government reimbursements for part of each state’s Medicaid spending. The 2009 stimulus bill temporarily raised FMAP payments for states during the recession, with larger increases going to states with higher unemployment rates. Failing to extend this provision will put state budgets under further strain for the 2011 and 2012 fiscal years.

Republicans who blocked this bill claim we should not be adding to the federal deficit. A spokesman for GOP enabler Ben Nelson laid out his views here. Ezra Klein pointed out a few glaring problems with the analysis: the federal budget can’t start approaching balance with unemployment at 9 percent, polls show Americans are much more concerned about jobs than the deficit, and the current rate of economic recovery is “far, far too slow to really dent unemployment.” Meanwhile, the same senators who claim to oppose adding to the deficit also oppose rolling back tax cuts or tax loopholes for the wealthy in order to pay for extending unemployed benefits, state fiscal aid and tax credits.

I share John Aravosis’ view that it was a terrible mistake for President Barack Obama to talk tough about reducing the deficit earlier this year. As Aravosis writes,

[T]he President didn’t want to blame Bush and the GOP for the deficit, and he didn’t want to sufficiently defend the stimulus and explain to people that they had a choice between a Great Depression and a bigger deficit. […] If the public understood that the deficit was a) mostly caused by Bush, and b) not nearly as important as staving off a Depression and creating jobs, the GOP would be facing far more pressure not to launch these filibusters at all.

Perhaps no jobs bill passed this week would alter the economy enough to affect the November elections, but if we accept current unemployment levels and don’t pass additional fiscal aid to the states, the economy may still be very weak leading up to the 2012 election.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread. From where I’m sitting, the case for Harkin’s filibuster reform proposal has never looked stronger.

Mr. desmoinesdem alerted me to a recent court ruling in Don Henley’s copyright suit against Republican Chuck DeVore for two web videos DeVore made during his unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign in California. Ben Sheffner has been covering the lawsuit at the Copyrights and Campaigns blog.

Henley sued over web videos that set new lyrics to two of his songs. DeVore changed “The Boys of Summer” to “The Hope of November” in a video that mocked Barack Obama, and he changed “All She Wants to Do Is Dance” to “All She Wants to Do Is Tax” in a video that mocked Senator Barbara Boxer.

DeVore claimed fair use on the grounds that the songs he put in his videos were parodies. The problem for DeVore was that legally, “a parody comments on the work itself; a satire uses the work to comment on something else.” DeVore wasn’t rewriting lyrics like Weird Al Yankovic used to do to make fun of musicians. He was scoring points against Obama and Boxer. If you haven’t paid for the rights to use a song, you have to meet a higher legal standard for satire than for parody.

You can download Judge James Selna’s ruling here. Excerpt:

Even assuming that “parody-of-the-author” is a legitimate transformative purpose, the Defendants’ songs do not satisfy the fair use analysis, as discussed below. “Tax” does not target Henley at all, and “November,” which only implicitly targets Henley, appropriates too much from “Summer” in relation to its slight jab at Henley and risks market substitution for “Summer” or its derivatives.

DeVore had claimed he was mocking Henley as part of the liberal Hollywood elite, but Henley argued in one legal brief that he has given money to some Republican candidates, including John McCain. (Who knew?)

Selna agreed with the plaintiffs’ claim that by using the Henley songs in their videos, DeVore’s campaign supplanted the market for derivatives of the Henley songs, because “licensees and advertisers do not like to use songs that are already associated with a particular product or cause. […] This injury is the very essence of market substitution.”

While Selna granted the plaintiffs summary judgment on the issue of copyright infringement, he did not issue a finding on whether the infringement was willful. (If so, Henley would have a stronger claim for monetary damages.) Sheffner comments, “I assume there will be a jury trial on the issue of willfulness and damages, unless the parties are able to reach a resolution.”

Selna rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that DeVore violated the Lanham Act by giving people the wrong impression that Henley had endorsed DeVore’s Senate campaign. Sheffner explained in this post why he thought Henley would (and should) lose that portion of the lawsuit.

Other candidates and campaign staffers should review this case before they decide to use copyrighted songs in web ads.

LATE UPDATE: Writing for the Electronic Frontier Foundation blog, Kurt Opsahl doesn’t like this court ruling:

The [DeVore] videos were core political speech, the most protected form of speech under the First Amendment. Yet the court blocked them, relying on copyright law. What happened?

The trouble is the misguided way that some courts have distinguished “parody” from “satire” in when measuring fair use. “Parody,” in the world of copyright, means using a work in order to comment on the work itself (or its creator). Parody gets a wide berth under fair use. So, for example, when 2 Live Crew famously sent-up Roy Orbison’s “Pretty Woman,” the Supreme Court found that the use was permitted. A “satire,” in contrast, involves using a work to comment on something other than the work itself.

Some courts have drawn the conclusion that “satires” are disfavored under the fair use doctrine. That’s the mistake the court made in Henley v. DeVore. […]

Satire is most effective when can draw from the well of society’s shared experiences, using common cultural references to leverage the commentary and reach a wider audience. It can take a known quantity, and add new meaning and message – classic characteristics of a fair use.

Fortunately, courts have increasingly begun to understand that fair use can and should apply to transformative satires. So although the judge in Henley v. DeVore got it wrong, other courts will have a chance to recognize the value of satire and fair use.

Click over to read the whole thing.

Governor Chet Culver’s campaign launched its first television commercial of the general election:

Transcript:

When the Republican State Auditor says a Republican Governor ‘Cooked the books’ and “kept two sets of books”… you take notice.

As Governor Terry Branstad admitted, “the books were never balanced.”

The state was so broke they couldn’t pay their bills.

Branstad doubled state spending, raised the state’s sales tax, raised the gas tax, even wanted to tax social security.

Cooked books, deficit spending, increased taxes.

Terry Branstad, a record not worth repeating.

If Culver were in a stronger political position, he’d probably lead off with a commercial highlighting his own record–something like the ad his campaign briefly ran last fall. However, Branstad’s been above 50 percent in several recent polls, and that number needs to come down. Branstad has been offering Iowans an airbrushed version of his own record, and this commercial brings up what Branstad wants Iowans to forget. The Culver campaign presents supporting facts and background here.

After the jump I’ve posted the Branstad campaign’s reaction to this ad and the Culver campaign’s rapid response. Note that Branstad’s people are yet again lying about an alleged billion-dollar budget gap.

Representative Steve King won’t cancel his planned trip to Colorado this weekend, even though the conservatives he had planned to help don’t want to be associated with him. Via Swing State Project’s morning news roundup I found this Loveland Connection article following up on the controversy over King’s recent comments on race. King is not backing down on his claim that President Barack Obama’s “default mechanism” on race “favors the black person.” As I discussed yesterday, the comments prompted Colorado Congressional candidate Cory Gardner to cancel a fundraiser King was supposed to headline and got King uninvited from a Northern Colorado Tea Party rally to be held in Loveland. From the Loveland Connection piece:

King said he called both [Northern Colorado Tea Party director Lesley] Hollywood and Gardner on Tuesday after their cancellation announcements.

“I have spoken with her and Cory Gardner both, and neither one of them disagreed with what I said or the position I have taken,” King said in an interview.

Gardner’s campaign manager, Chris Hansen, flatly rejected King’s characterization of his conversation with the Northern Colorado congressional candidate: “That is not an accurate reflection of Representative Gardner’s views,” he said in an e-mail.

Hollywood was interviewed Tuesday morning but couldn’t immediately be reached for comment after King’s interview.

The Iowa congressman said he told Gardner and Hollywood he’d be in Colorado on Saturday.

“I pointed out to them that I’m coming to Colorado, that’s in my schedule and they’ll have to figure it out from there,” he said.

He declined to elaborate on his weekend plans: “We will make some arrangements so that works out to be effective.”

A spokesman for Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck, a Republican Senate candidate who also will speak at the Loveland rally, also rejected King’s statement.

“His comments do not represent the Tea Party,” Buck spokesman Owen Loftus told The Associated Press.

Stay tuned–this could get interesting over the weekend if the rank and file Colorado tea partiers stand by King. He typically gets a warm reception from tea party crowds, as Joseph Morton noted in this story for the Omaha World-Herald:

King said that the controversy over his comments had been drummed up by liberal activists and that he was surprised both the Gardner campaign and the local tea party leadership “caved” in the face of that controversy.

“That’s not the kind of people I want guarding my back,” King said. […]

King has spoken at numerous tea party rallies, including one in Washington in April. King was introduced to the enthusiastic crowd as a “tea partier on the inside” and a congressman who is “tea party tested and tea party approved.”

He also hung one of the “Don’t Tread On Me” flags popular among tea party regulars outside his Capitol Hill office. He said at the time that the flag has become “the symbol of taking our country back.”

Obama and race also were mentioned in a speech made last month by King.

“When he had an Irish cop and a black professor, who’d he side with?” King asked. “He jumped to a conclusion without having heard the facts. And he ended up having to have a beer summit.

“The president of the United States has got to articulate a mission. And instead, he’s playing race-bait games to undermine the law enforcement in the state of Arizona and across the country.”

Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn clearly wants this controversy to blow over, but King would rather stand his ground, even if he embarrasses fellow Republicans in the process.

UPDATE: King tweeted on Thursday, “I will do media and two events in Colorado Saturday. One at Elizabeth at 11:00, one at Loveland at 2:30 with Tancredo and others.” Can’t wait!

Meanwhile, Iowa Democratic Party Chair Sue Dvorsky said today,

“King’s statements reflect an absolute callous disregard for the truth and is an embarrassment to all Iowans,” Dvorsky said. “I’m calling on Sen. Grassley, Terry Branstad, and Iowa Republicans to join me and the Northern Colorado Tea Party in denouncing Steve King’s irresponsible and divisive comments.” […]

“It’s truly unfortunate that Matt Strawn and other Iowa Republicans haven’t mustered the courage to put him in his place,” Dvorsky said. “This is a Congressman that spends more time trying to make the news than working for his constituents. It’s time for Iowa Republicans to make a stand and let Rep. King know this kind of behavior is not going to be tolerated.”

UPDATE: Isaiah McGee, the rising African American star of the Republican Party of Iowa, defended King in this post at The Iowa Republican blog. The Iowa Democratic Party asked whether Terry Branstad was indirectly defending King, noting that McGee serves as Young Professionals Chair for the Branstad campaign.

When the filing deadline for Iowa candidates passed in March, many Democrats were shocked that no Republican tried to qualify for the ballot in House district 16. The district in Iowa’s northeast corner covers all of Allamakee County and most of Winnishiek County, including Decorah, site of Luther College. Click here to download a district map (pdf file). Republican Chuck Gipp represented this district for 18 years before retiring in 2008. Although the area has been trending toward Democrats for some time, Republicans still have a slight voter registration advantage. As of the beginning of June 2010, there were 6127 registered Democrats in House district 16, 6819 Republicans and 7737 no-party voters.

This week, someone finally stepped up to challenge freshman State Representative John Beard. More details about that Republican and an early look at the House district 16 race are after the jump.

To no one’s surprise, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland’s political arm, called the Planned Parenthood Voters of Iowa PAC, endorsed Governor Chet Culver’s re-election bid today. Planned Parenthood’s PAC (at that time called the Freedom Fund) supported Culver during the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial primary and in that year’s general election against Jim Nussle, and the PAC’s statement issued today explains the decision to back him again:

“Governor Chet Culver has done more to reduce the need for abortion and increase access for women’s health care than his opponent ever will,” said Jill June, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland. “During the primary debates, Terry Branstad has made it clear that he would cut basic health care services to more than 50,000 Iowan women by choosing to cut Planned Parenthood as a service provider.”

PAC chair Phyllis Peters cited Governor Culver’s record. “Governor Culver has strongly supported the health care needs of women in many different ways. He has supported vaccine coverage for the HPV vaccine, the only vaccine to prevent cervical cancer; funded the state match to the Medicaid Family Planning Waiver to provide contraception to low income women; supported medically accurate sexuality education in our schools; and supported extending the age a woman can qualify for family planning services. Women in Iowa can count on Governor Culver to listen, understand and respond to the very real health needs of women.”

In the primary campaign candidate Terry Branstad indicated that he would support an Iowa law similar to one just passed in Oklahoma, which would require an invasive sonogram for women who seek abortions. Unlike sonograms currently used in Iowa, this would require a sonogram where a probe is inserted in the woman to show the image of the fetus, even for victims of rape and incest.

“Terry Branstad believes in using intimidation tactics to prevent women from their legal rights. That’s not what Iowan’s believe or want in our state,” said Jill June. “The Planned Parenthood Voters of Iowa PAC is speaking out against these tactics of discrimination and intimidation, as we show our support for Governor Culver.”

Branstad generally avoids mentioning Planned Parenthood by name, but this spring he repeatedly said Iowa “should not provide funding for organizations that provide abortion services.” That wording left the misleading impression that state funding pays for abortions, but no government money pays for any abortions at Planned Parenthood clinics. Most of the state funding to Planned Parenthood of the Heartland covers contraception and is matched on a 9:1 basis by the federal government through the Medicaid family planning program. (That is, every dollar from the state budget is matched by $9 from Medicaid.)

It’s outrageous that Branstad, the former president of a medical school, would support an Oklahoma abortion law that lets the government dictate how some doctors should care for their patients and even how they should talk to their patients. So much for government not getting between you and your doctor.

Culver slammed the Oklahoma approach in this statement his campaign released today:

“I am so pleased to receive the endorsement of Planned Parenthood Voters of Iowa PAC. I’ve worked very hard in my first term to maintain and improve family planning and women’s rights in the state of Iowa and I am proud to have their support in this election.  By contrast, Terry Branstad doesn’t trust the women of Iowa to make their own health care decisions.

“What’s ironic is that the women and men of Iowa cannot trust Branstad on health care. When he was at Des Moines University, he supported mandates. When he was campaigning  in the Republican primary, he opposed mandates. Iowans can only guess as to his position tomorrow. What is clear is that he thinks requirements such as allowing adult children to continue to be insured on their parents’ policy or prohibiting people from being denied insurance for pre-existing conditions is too intrusive but forcing victims to have invasive procedures is all right.

“Branstad even campaigned on enacting a law similar to the one passed in Oklahoma. The law requires a woman to have an invasive and expensive sonogram, for no medical reason, prior to receiving some services, forcing women who are victims of rape or incest to re-live these horrifying violent crimes. Well, I believe that is wrong.

“Terry Branstad is out of touch on this issue. He even refused to comment on the endorsement today because he knows that he’s on the wrong side of women’s issues.

“I have worked hard to invest in a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her health care and I will continue that investment.”

Click here for background on Branstad’s inconsistent stand regarding a proposed individual mandate to purchase health insurance.

No doubt we’ll hear more this fall about Branstad opposing reproductive rights, because it fits Culver’s message about Branstad pushing failed ideas of the past.

The Republican pollster Rasmussen finds Terry Branstad enjoying a post-primary bounce against Governor Chet Culver. A survey of 500 “likely Iowa voters” on June 14 found Branstad leading Culver 57 percent to 31 percent, with 6 percent of respondents not sure and 6 percent saying they would support some other candidate. Rasmussen’s previous Iowa poll, taken about six weeks ago, showed Branstad ahead 53-38.

Click here for survey questions and toplines from this week’s poll. President Obama’s approve/disapprove numbers are 50/48, but Culver’s are 41/58. Even if you assume that Rasmussen’s Republican-leaning “house effect” skewed these numbers by a bit more than the stated 4.5 percent margin of error, this is obviously a bad poll for Culver.

I assume we will see some other pollsters survey the Iowa governor’s race soon. I am surprised that the Des Moines Register hasn’t published any new numbers on this matchup lately. Selzer and Co. conducted an Iowa poll for the Register the first week of June, but the newspaper’s coverage so far has focused a subsample of GOP primary voters.

Although Rasmussen has polled many primary contests around the country this year, he never released a survey testing Branstad and Bob Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts before the Republican primary. Post your theories about reasons for the omission, or any comments about the Iowa governor’s race, in this thread.

I was offline for a few days and returned to find that Representative Steve “10 Worst” King has been shooting off his mouth again. Historically, King’s offensive outbursts have enhanced his reputation with the country’s right wing, but this time even some conservatives are troubled by his comments. On Monday, King went on G. Gordon Liddy’s talk radio show to talk about Arizona’s new immigration law. Apparently that topic wasn’t controversial enough, because King said of President Barack Obama’s administration,

When you look at this administration, I’m offended by [U.S. Attorney General] Eric Holder and the President also, their posture.  It looks like Eric Holder said that white people in America are cowards when it comes to race.  And I don’t know what the basis of that is but I’m not a coward when it comes to that and I’m happy to talk about these things and I think we should.  But the President has demonstrated that he has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race – on the side that favors the black person.

The Media Matters Action Network’s Political Correction blog posted the audio clip here. Naturally, King misquoted Holder and distorted the meaning of his words. Over at The Atlantic blog, Ta-Nehisi Coates discusses the long American history of claiming your political opponent is “favoring black people.”

We Iowans are used to King embarrassing us from time to time, but some out-of-staters were apparently shocked this week. Republican candidate Cory Gardner, who is challenging a Democratic incumbent in Colorado’s conservative-leaning fourth district, quickly canceled a fundraiser King was planning to headline this weekend (more on that here). Meanwhile, the Northern Colorado Tea Party axed King’s scheduled appearance at its June 19 event, saying, “we do not feel his remarks align with the mission and vision of the Northern Colorado Tea Party, which focuses on promoting fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free enterprise according to Constitutional principles. The race debate does not have a place in the Tea Party movement or in politics today.” Gardner will be at the Tea Party event and presumably wanted to avoid being on stage with King.

King told an Iowa political admirer on Monday, “The fact that liberals have risen to attack me and call me names without rebutting my assertions concedes my point […] When they start calling you names you know they’ve lost the argument.”

No, Congressman, when even your supposed political allies can’t get far enough away from you, it proves you have lost the argument. How often do candidates cancel opportunities to raise money for a campaign?

In case you were wondering what King had planned to say about the Arizona law on Gordon Liddy’s talk show, I infer it’s something like what he said on the floor of the U.S. House Monday evening:

   KING: Some claim that the Arizona law will bring about racial discrimination profiling. First let me say, Mr. Speaker, that profiling has always been an important component of legitimate law enforcement. If you can’t profile someone, you can’t use those common sense indicators that are before your very eyes. Now, I think it’s wrong to use racial profiling for the reasons of discriminating against people, but it’s not wrong to use race or other indicators for the sake of identifying that are violating the law. […]

   It’s just a common sense thing. Law enforcement needs to use common sense indicators. Those common sense indicators are all kinds of things, from what kind of clothes people wear – my suit in my case – what kind of shoes people wear, what kind of accident [sic] they have, um, the, the type of grooming they might have, there’re, there’re all kinds of indicators there and sometimes it’s just a sixth sense and they can’t put their finger on it. But these law enforcement officers, if they were going to be discriminating against people on the sole basis of race, singling people out, that’d be going on already.

Something tells me King wouldn’t be so comfortable with racial profiling if law enforcement singled out people who look like him. But empathy has never been his strong suit. We’re talking about a guy who thinks deporting undocumented immigrants to an area devastated by an earthquake might be a good way to send extra relief workers.

Matt Campbell is the Democratic nominee in Iowa’s fifth district; go here to get involved in supporting his campaign. Rob Hubler, King’s opponent in 2008, spoke with the Sioux City Journal’s Bret Hayworth last week about the challenges of campaigning in this huge district, which covers 32 Iowa counties. He noted that it’s particularly hard for a candidate to get a message out with so many media markets covering portions of the district.

UPDATE: The Political Correction blog followed up on this story today.

Also, King told Radio Iowa that he stands by his remarks. Campbell commented on the controversy too: “I think they’re reflective of a pattern of Mr. King saying polarizing things. I think collectively they preclude meaningful work on issues important to the development of western Iowa because of statements such as this.” Hard to argue with that one.

SECOND UPDATE: Representative Bruce Braley, a Democrat, said King’s comments about Obama favoring black people “were deplorable and an embarrassment to the state of Iowa.”

Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn and third district Congressional candidate Brad Zaun declined to comment, and Zaun said repeatedly that he didn’t know exactly what King had said.

The 2002 Help America Vote Act sent $30 million to Iowa for new voting equipment, training, and voter education. Now a federal audit at the Election Assistance Commission says less than 2% of the money was not spent according to Hoyle. Iowa must reimburse itself this money–some $575,000 by the end of this year.

But the real scandal was the money that was “properly” spent on touchscreen voting machines that have since been scrapped. If anyone wants to criticize then SoS Chet Culver, it should be for that foolish purchase, taken when the flaws of paperless voting were well known and public skepticism was running high. But no, that scandal is forgotten. Even the federal Election Assistance Commission, which is looking over Culver's shoulder in this audit, would never admit that touchscreens were folly. Many states still use them.

This is a trivial scandal compared to the Iowa film tax credits or to most audit scandals you read of. The original audit charges were that nearly ten percent of the money had been misspent, but the EAC has now vindicated the Iowa SoS and has dropped the majority of the charges.

The remaining complaints don't show that the public was cheated so much as they show Culver failed to follow some rules. He failed to get a competitive bid before hiring a consultant to conduct public meetings and otherwise help prepare the HAVA plan for Iowa. He allowed a voter education project to cover too many topics, some of which are now said to be not educational. He spent some money celebrating the Voting Rights Act and on Get Out the Vote radio ads that should not have been paid with HAVA money.

So now Iowa must pay this money back to the Iowa HAVA account at the Secretary of State's Office. You see, the expenditures may have all been legitimate–it's just that they weren't in line with the HAVA rules for using federal money. It's not clear which other Iowa source of funds will be tapped for this money. No money goes back to Washington, D.C.

That's it! No one claims the consultant (Iowa Public Policy Group) did a poor job. Their contract is more than three quarters of the money at issue. This could indeed be favoritism of some sort on Culver's behalf, so let's wait to see if anyone makes that claim. I'm not very sympathetic when competitive bidding rules are ignored. Shame on Culver. Had there been a competitive contract, maybe we would have saved a few bucks.

We still would have had touchscreens at the end of it. That's the real scandal.

cross-posted at IowaVoters.org 

A lot of discussion has been centering on Roxanne Conlin's historic bid to become Iowa's first female elected to the U.S. Senate.  Iowa has never elected a woman to Congress and we share that distinction with just one other state – Mississippi.

Yet, this isn't the only connection between Iowa and our friends to the south in Mississippi.  The other is water, and the issue that is beginning to get more attention as people focus on the Gulf oil spill is hypoxia.

Hypoxia or oxygen depletion is a phenomenon that occurs in aquatic environments as dissolved oxygen (DO; molecular oxygen dissolved in the water) becomes reduced in concentration to a point detrimental to aquatic organisms living in the system. Dissolved oxygen is typically expressed as a percentage of the oxygen that would dissolve in the water at the prevailing temperature and salinity (both of which affect the solubility of oxygen in water; see oxygen saturation and underwater). An aquatic system lacking dissolved oxygen (0% saturation) is termed anaerobic, reducing, or anoxic; a system with low concentration—in the range between 1 and 30% saturation—is called hypoxic or dysoxic. Most fish cannot live below 30% saturation. A “healthy” aquatic environment should seldom experience less than 80%. The exaerobic zone is found at the boundary of anoxic and hypoxic zones

This week Forbes released its 2010 list of “America’s Best Places to Raise a Family,” and the Des Moines/West Des Moines metro area ranked number one. Methodology:

To find the cities where families fare best, we ranked America’s 100 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas in seven categories. Using numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Sperling’s Best Places and Moody’s Economy.com, we looked at the cost of living, prevalence of home ownership, median household income, housing costs, commute time, crime and the percentage of young adults that graduate high school.

The Des Moines metro topped the list because, “Its young population is more likely to graduate high school than in other cities, and life for most families is safe and affordable. Short average commute times save working parents precious minutes to spend with their families.”

Click here to view the rest of the Forbes report. I was surprised to see that six mid-sized cities on the east coast made the top 10 list.

Speaking of surprises, you may enjoy this One Iowa story about two men who decided to get married in Pella, where they live. Even in that famously conservative small town, they have found growing acceptance of their relationship and marriage.

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

Professor David Swenson of Iowa State University is a regularly featured source in newspapers/reports across the state.  He recently penned an article on the economic benefits of conservation in the Iowa Heritage magazine – from Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation.  You can find the piece after the jump, but a quick blurb:

When linking our natural resources with our economy, Iowans too often limit the discussion to recreation and tourism – sometimes casting nature as a mere springboard for commercial development. However, a healthy Iowa environment is not a means to an economic end, but rather the end itself – to which all sustainable economic activity must conform.

One day after Terry Branstad won the Republican nomination for governor, his accountability problem was back on display. Speaking to the Iowa Association of Business and Industry’s annual convention in Ames yesterday, Branstad told the audience, “I want to get rid of the present incumbent because he’s driven the state into the biggest budget deficit in history.”

In the psychological field, projection is “a defense mechanism that involves taking our own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people.” I’m not qualified to offer any professional diagnosis, but Branstad’s the guy who really did keep two sets of books to hide illegal deficits. It’s incredible to hear him keep making that false claim about Governor Chet Culver’s administration. The governor and Iowa’s legislative leaders haven’t run up any budget deficit, let alone the largest deficit ever. If Culver were running deficits, Iowa wouldn’t have a top-level credit rating or be considered one of the states “least like California” in terms of fiscal problems.

How long will Branstad keep getting away with making stuff up about Culver’s record? Your guess is as good as mine.

In other news, Branstad promised the Association of Business and Industry crowd that if elected, he wouldn’t allow key priorities of organized labor like the prevailing wage or collective bargaining bills to become law. I doubt ABI has to worry about that, since Iowa Democrats haven’t delivered on those issues during the past four years.

Culver visited a Cedar Rapids preschool yesterday and blasted Branstad’s “20th Century thinking” on preschool funding:

“This is an investment we cannot afford to not make in the future,” Culver said about the preschool initiative. He said he budgeted $90 million this year for the program and $115 million next year. […]

“While we want to continue to fund preschool … Terry Branstad wants to take that away,” Culver said. […]

The fiscal 2011 funding will assist an additional 150 school districts and school district collaborations under the statewide voluntary preschool program, he said. It is projected that during the 2010-2011 school year about 21,354 four-year-olds will be served by the preschool program in 326 school districts across the state.

Many Iowa families could not afford early education for their children without the state program. Culver is right to pound Branstad for his screwed-up priorities. Culver also criticized the Republican for wanting to go backwards on state-funded stem cell research, women’s reproductive rights and flood recovery funding for the Cedar Rapids area. Like everyone else in the Iowa GOP, Branstad has criticized the I-JOBS infrastructure bonding initiative but not explained how he would have paid for the flood reconstruction and prevention projects Iowa needs.

Branstad told Todd Dorman of the Cedar Rapids Gazette that he would not try to repeal the I-JOBS bonding, but “also compared I-JOBS to the Greek debt crisis.” Give me a break. The professional investor community drove down the interest rate of the initial I-JOBS offering because of Iowa’s solid fiscal condition and plan for repaying the bonds. In fact, I-JOBS was one of the top 10 “deals of the year” in 2009 according to Bond Buyer, the daily newspaper of public finance.

Not typically a topic discussed here at Bleeding Heartland, but as a number of recent posts have highlighted – Iowa is indeed “open for business” and a good place for companies to thrive.  Case in point?  Casey's General Stores. 

Now, if you've been boycotting BP over the recent spill in the Gulf of Mexico you may have been forced to change your regular convenience store/gas stop.  Casey's is an Iowa based, publicly traded company and recently subject to a hostile takeover bid by a rival convenience store chain.

After the jump there's a recent blog post from the New York Times that goes into great detail.  Interested to see readers take on the issue – and possibly discussing our reliance on fossil fuels, in general. We don't hear about hostile takeover bids for Iowa companies very often!  

Caring for the Cedar River

by Kamyar Enshayan – Cedar Falls City Council

This week, The American Rivers, a national river protection organization, chose the Cedar River among the top ten endangered rivers in America. The underlying causes are familiar: radically altered landscape, loss of wetlands, impairment of floodplains, federal policies encouraging farming practices that have degraded soil functions, too much fertilizer and pesticides, straightened out creek and streams, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, and overall loss of the capacity of the land to absorb, retain, process and release water.

Although the Secretary of State’s Office won’t post the final numbers until after the county canvasses, we know enough to determine who prevailed in Bleeding Heartland’s primary election prediction contest.

Winners for each of the ten questions get credit after the jump.

The Des Moines Register reported this morning that Michael Kiernan is stepping down as chair of the Iowa Democratic Party.

Kiernan is leaving because of personal reasons, [IDP Executive Director Norm] Sterzenbach said. He declined to go into details but noted that Democrats will hold a press conference at 2 p.m.

The Democratic State Central Committee will hold a special meeting Thursday night to vote on a new chairman.

I’ll update this post after Kiernan’s press conference today. UPDATE: Kiernan said he is resigning “because of personal health reasons. I am resigning so that I can focus on my family and my health. Believe me when I say that I would be here fighting to elect more Democrats every day if I could.” I posted the complete statement released by the Iowa Democratic Party after the jump. I’m sure all Bleeding Heartland readers join me in wishing Kiernan a speedy recovery.

Kiernan was selected to chair the Iowa Democratic Party in January 2009. Under his leadership the party has been out-raising the Republican Party of Iowa. He also helped recruit Roxanne Conlin to run against Senator Chuck Grassley. Speaking to her supporters after winning yesterday’s primary election,

Conlin told a story about January 2009.

“I was sitting there innocently with nothing on my mind but the concerns of my clients when an old dear friend insisted on an appointment,” Conlin said.

The old friend, Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Michael Kiernan, told her that he wanted to talk to her about something.

“The something that he wanted to talk to me about was my running against Grassley. I thought he’d lost his mind. I said, ‘You must be kidding me!”

As the crowd laughed, Conlin said: “So it turned out it was a good idea after all.”

That was months before Bob Krause or Tom Fiegen had announced plans to run against Grassley. It showed a lot of foresight for Kiernan to be seeking out a high-profile challenger for that race.  

The result was overshadowed by other competitive races, but Democratic voters in Iowa House district 66 produced a big victory for marriage equality yesterday. Elder Clair Rudison, a socially conservative pastor, challenged two-term State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad. Rudison sent out at least five direct-mail pieces attacking Ako’s record, two of which mentioned gay marriage (I posted those here).

Most Iowa politics-watchers were confident Ako would win this primary, but in a low-turnout environment anything can happen, so I was relieved to see Ako won 75 percent of the vote yesterday. The result is important because the only Iowa House Democrat who has consistently worked with Republicans to bring a constitutional amendment on marriage to a vote is retiring this year. If Rudison had won the primary, Republicans would be able to continue to claim bipartisan support for their battle against equality and reproductive rights.

One Iowa released a statment on the House district 66 results. Excerpt:

Voters rejected the negative and divisive tactics he and the Iowa Family Policy Center used to try to smear his opponent. “We congratulate Rep. Ako Abdul-Samad on his decisive victory and welcome his continued leadership at the statehouse,” said Jenison.

Chuck Hurley and his followers at the Iowa Family Policy Center recruited Clair Rudison to run against long-time community activist and current state representative Ako Abdul-Samad in the Democratic primary simply because Abdul-Samad supports marriage equality for all Iowans.

“For more than a year, the Iowa Family Policy Center said repeatedly that the legislative elections in 2010 will be about one thing: gay marriage,” said One Iowa Executive Director Carolyn Jenison. “Tonight’s results prove them wrong. Iowans are not interested in writing discrimination into our constitution. They are concerned with creating jobs, improving our schools, and moving our state forward.”

The recent Research 2000 Iowa poll for KCCI-TV should be a warning to Republicans who think bashing gay marriage will be their winning ticket in November. About 53 percent of respondents said they favored marriage rights for same-sex couples, while only 41 percent opposed them. KCCI’s managing editor for internet broadcasting provided the cross-tabs for that part of the poll. They indicate that support for equality is stronger among women (57-36) than among men (49-46). The KCCI poll showed independents supporting same-sex marriage rights by 58-31, closer to the Democratic numbers of 81-17 than to the Republican respondents, who oppose marriage equality by 83-14.

Polls close at 9 pm, but I decided to post this thread early in case anyone wants to chat before results start coming in.

I’ll update later with returns in the key Iowa races. For now, share any anecdotes about voting or political talk today. I ran into a friend who was a Republican for most of her life, even voting twice for George W. Bush. She voted for Chet Culver in 2006 and plans to volunteer for his campaign this year, mostly because she doesn’t want Republicans to cut preschool funding and other social services for kids.

9:15 pm UPDATE: 9 percent of precincts reporting, Terry Branstad 47 percent, Bob Vander Plaats 46 percent, Rod Roberts 7 percent. I have no idea which part of the state has reported–if those are from northwest Iowa counties, Branstad probably doesn’t have anything to worry about, but if that’s from central or eastern Iowa, this could be a lot closer than I expected.

Brad Zaun leads the early returns in IA-03, but it seems like Polk County is coming in early.

9:40 pm UPDATE. The Associated Press has called the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate for Roxanne Conlin. She has about 80 percent of the vote in the early returns; Bob Krause and Tom Fiegen have about 10 percent each.

Branstad is opening up a lead on Vander Plaats, about 51-41.

Zaun is dominating the IA-03 primary with over 50 percent of the vote (about half the precincts counted).

10 pm UPDATE: Zaun is being called the winner in the IA-03 primary. He has about half the vote with about two-thirds of the precincts reporting.

Mariannette Miller-Meeks leads the IA-02 GOP primary in the early returns.

Matt Campbell leads Mike Denklau in the early returns for the IA-05 Democratic primary.

Conlin just finished giving her victory speech to her supporters.

Ako Abdul-Samad won the Democratic primary in Iowa House district 66 with about 75 percent of the vote.

10:35 pm UPDATE: The AP has called the gubernatorial primary for Branstad, who has 51 percent of the vote with about three quarters of the precincts counted. Matt Campbell won the fifth district Democratic primary.

Mariannette Miller-Meeks looks smart for not wasting money on tv ads in the IA-02 primary. She has been called the winner with 50 percent of the vote in a four-way race. The NRCC’s favored candidate, Rob Gettemy, may actually finish dead last.

Matt Schultz has a pretty big lead in the GOP secretary of state primary, about 47 percent so far. The big surprise to me is that Chris Sanger (who hardly raised any money) has almost as many votes as George Eichhorn, who had quite a few endorsements and has been active in Iowa politics for a long time.

Tea party candidate Tom Shaw has a narrow lead in the Republican primary in Iowa House district 8, but it’s too early to know if that lead will hold up.

11:25 pm UPDATE: It’s official, Gettemy finished dead last in IA-02. Miller-Meeks won that four-way primary with an impressive 51 percent of the vote. Will Republicans unite behind her?

Zaun is sitting at about 43 percent with most of the IA-03 votes counted.

Branstad is still leading with 51 percent of the vote, to 40 percent for Vander Plaats. If the Club for Growth had invested $1 million in Vander Plaats, this could have been a nail-biter.

Matt Schultz did win the secretary of state primary with 47 percent of the vote. Political veteran George Eichhorn got 27 percent, and Chris Sanger got 26 percent despite spending almost no money.

Dave Jamison easily won the GOP primary for state treasurer with about 67 percent of the vote to 33 percent for Jim Heavens.

Campbell has a very big lead in the IA-05 Democratic primary, with about 76 percent of votes counted so far.

In Iowa Senate district 13, Tod Bowman easily won the four-way Democratic primary with more than 60 percent of the vote. He had key union endorsements. This should be an easy hold for us in November.

Anesa Kajtazovic won the House district 21 Democratic primary with more than 90 percent of the vote (Kerry Burt dropped out of the race this spring).

Democratic incumbents Chuck Isenhart, Dave Jacoby and Mary Gaskill easily held off primary challenges in House districts 27, 30 and 93, respectively. All won more than 80 percent of the vote.

In Iowa House district 8, tea partier Tom Shaw is officially the Republican primary winner over Stephen Richards, who almost beat Dolores Mertz in the 2008 election. I like our chances of holding a seat that should have been the GOP’s best pickup opportunity in the Iowa House.

Check the AP’s page for results in the other statehouse primaries (mostly GOP).

WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON UPDATE: I can’t believe I forgot to mention the results in Senate district 41. State Senator Dave Hartsuch, who defeated incumbent Maggie Tinsman in the 2006 GOP primary, got a taste of his own medicine when he lost the Republican primary to Roby Smith by a 52-48 margin. Rich Clewell won the Democratic primary with 56 percent to 44 percent for Republican-turned-Democrat Dave Thede. Scott County readers, do you think these results improve our chances of winning this district? It has historically been Republican, but registration numbers have been trending toward Democrats, evening things out.