For 25 years, American Rivers has released annual reports on “America’s Most Endangered Rivers.” Only one waterway in the Midwest made the group’s top ten list for 2010: Iowa’s Cedar River, which came in at number 5. American Rivers comments:

The Cedar River harbors globally rare plant communities, provides critical habitat for fish and wildlife, and is a popular destination for paddlers and anglers. However, outdated flood management and poor watershed planning are impacting public health and safety by causing pollution and increasing the risk of flood damage. The Army Corps of Engineers must prioritize lower cost, non-structural flood management solutions on the Cedar River. These natural solutions will help reduce flood damage, improve water quality, restore fish and wildlife habitat, and provide recreational opportunities and economic benefits while saving taxpayer dollars.

Go here to download a factsheet with more information about the Cedar River and why it’s “endangered.”

Perry Beeman posted the full press release from American Rivers at the Des Moines Register’s blog. Excerpt:

“We have an opportunity to learn from the devastating floods of 1993 and 2008 and rebuild smarter and stronger. We need to incorporate non-structural, natural solutions that provide flood protection, improve water quality, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, and provide recreational opportunities and economic benefits to local communities,” said Sean McMahon, state director of The Nature Conservancy in Iowa.

“It is time for Iowans to insist that state and federal flood protection policies work to reduce flood damage by moving people and structures out of harms way, allowing the flood plain to perform its natural function to absorb and slow the river’s flow during future floods,” said Susan Heathcote with Iowa Environmental Council.

“The newly-organized Cedar River Watershed Coalition has recognized the need to take a holistic approach to watershed management by reaching across city and county jurisdictions to take a whole watershed approach to flood mitigation and river restoration.  This innovative group of concerned individuals and communities is committed to working together to reduce the impacts of flooding in the watershed and to improve water quality in the Cedar River,” said Rosalyn Lehman with Iowa Rivers Revival.

By 2008, the Cedar River had had two 500-year floods within 15 years. Rain falls on a radically changed landscape: plowed fields have replaced tall grass prairies; streams and creeks have been straightened; 90 percent of wetlands have been destroyed; floodplains have been filled and developed; and flows have doubled in just the last half century. Even without factoring in possible effects of climate change, which would exacerbate the problems, the landscape changes will bring more frequent and severe floods. The communities along the Cedar River deserve better, 21st century flood protection solutions to ensure public safety and river health.

The Cedar River, a tributary to the Mississippi River, provides drinking water to more than 120,000 residents, and roughly 530,000 people live and work in the Cedar River watershed. The primary land use in the watershed is agriculture and the river is a popular place for boating and fishing. The river is home to globally rare plant communities and fish and wildlife, including two species of endangered mussels.

In response to the devastating floods of 2008, the Iowa legislature passed a bill in 2009 requiring the Water Resources Coordinating Council to draft recommendations on “a watershed management approach to reduce the adverse impact of future flooding on this state’s residents, businesses, communities, and soil and water quality.” The WRCC submitted those recommendations in November 2009.

Unfortunately, Iowa legislators proved unwilling during the 2010 session to take even baby steps on floodplain management. A bill much weaker than the WRCC recommendations passed the Iowa Senate but never made it out of subcommittee in the Iowa House. The League of Cities, among others, lobbied against the measure. But don’t worry, if any of those cities experience a catastrophic flood, their lobbyists will urge legislators to send plenty of state taxpayer money their way.

I would like to see more cities adopt Davenport’s model for co-existing with a river:

In a nation that spends billions annually on structural flood protection (and billions more when the levees fail) Davenport is the national model for a more cost effective and environmentally responsible approach. We are the largest city in the nation on a major river without a system of levees and pumps for “flood control”. We’ve never had them.  And we don’t want them. Instead of viewing the grand Mississippi as just another storm sewer, we treat it appropriately, with a broad floodplain in (99%) City ownership, now the focal point of our “River Vision” plan. The River Vision plan, developed in conjunction with our southern shore partner, Rock Island, Illinois, is the only bi-state riverfront brownfield redevelopment plan of its kind in the nation. Developed with the extraordinary public input of more than a thousand citizens, the plan is guiding the riverfront revitalization of the historic core of the Quad Cities, and has garnered the nation’s “Most Livable Small City” award from the US Conference of Mayors.  In the historic 2008 Iowa floods, Davenport outperformed every city in the state. We even continued to play baseball at our riverfront ballpark as it became an island in the river. In 2009, our unique approach to floodplain management merited review by the National Academy of Science.  A nine minute video of Davenport’s resilience through the 2008 floods is accessible online.

The University of Iowa’s Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research, in cooperation with other groups, has organized a series of seminars on “The Anatomy of Iowa Floods: Preparing for the Future.” The first of the free seminar series took place in Des Moines in March. After the jump I’ve posted the schedule and agenda for future seminars in Burlington, Cedar Rapids, and Waverly this month, and in Mason City and Ames in July.

If you care about protecting Iowa waterways, please consider joining any or all of the following groups: Iowa Environmental Council, Iowa Rivers Revival, Nature Conservancy in Iowa, and the Sierra Club Iowa chapter.

No one commissioned the Iowa Republican gubernatorial primary survey that Public Policy Polling released yesterday, PPP director Tom Jensen said today. Speaking by telephone from North Carolina, Jensen said the firm does most of its polling on its own with no commission. If a candidate or organization does commission one of PPP’s surveys, “we note that in the press release.” PPP has polled primary contests in many states this spring.

Jensen was commenting on speculation by Craig Robinson of the Iowa Republican Blog. In today’s top story at the blog, Robinson tried to make it sound suspicious that a North Carolina-based firm would survey the Iowa governor’s race. He asserted that since PPP has done polls for Congressional Democrats, pro-choice groups and labor unions, the “most likely scenario” for PPP’s new Iowa poll was that the 527 group Iowans for Responsible Government commissioned it. Former Iowa Democratic Party chair Rob Tully created the 527 group, and Robinson claimed the funders are trying to “see how much damage” their direct mail and advertising campaign has done to Terry Branstad. Jensen characterized Robinson’s line of analysis as “just making stuff up” and repeated that no Iowa Democrats commissioned PPP’s latest Iowa poll.

Jensen added that PPP will release general-election matchup numbers for the Iowa governor’s race later today, and for the U.S. Senate race tomorrow. I’ll post those numbers at Bleeding Heartland when they become available.

Yesterday Republican campaign consultant Steve Grubbs, president of Victory Enterprises, told Iowa Independent that PPP’s findings on the Republican gubernatorial primary were “very similar to what he’s seen in internal surveys done by his company.” He added that Vander Plaats will struggle to bring up his name recognition in time for the June 8 primary

“The fact that Branstad is under 50 percent probably gives Vander Plaats a glimmer of hope,” he said. “But our projections are that 18-40 year-old voters will make up about 18 percent of the electorate on June 8. The rest will be older than 40.”

Those numbers are significant, since Branstad has a commanding lead with senior citizens but is tied among voters younger than 45, according to the PPP poll.

I have a post in progress about the Iowans for Responsible Government attacks on Branstad, but for now you can read more about them in the Des Moines Register (also here), the Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier and Iowa Independent.

Election years provide many “teachable moments” for children. In 2006 my three-year-old loved coming with me to deliver yard signs. We talked about how some people like to tell everyone in the neighborhood who they are voting for, while other people like to keep that a secret. For weeks he would comment on yard signs as we drove around town. “Mommy, that person is also voting for Chet Culver!”

In 2008 both of our kids experienced the unbearable stuffiness of our precinct caucus, and while they didn’t know the campaign issues, they did understand that people standing in different corners were supporting different candidates. They also understood the goal of getting as many people as possible to stand in your group. Many of my neighbors also brought children to the caucus, and I vividly remember one family whose seven-year-old daughter wore a Hillary button and nine-year-old son wore an Obama sticker even as their mom and dad caucused for Biden and Dodd (then Edwards after realignment).

During the 2008 general election campaign, my five-year-old son got a real-world dose of pluralism when he asked his favorite baby-sitter who she was voting for, and she answered McCain. I still laugh when I remember his follow-up question: “But who are you voting for for president?” It didn’t take him long to understand that yes, Mommy and Daddy were still voting for Barack Obama, but his baby-sitter was voting for John McCain.

I’ve decided to start a diary series about the political lessons my kids learn during this year’s campaign. My first big teaching opportunity of the 2010 election happened a few weeks ago…  

Via Todd Dorman’s blog, I see news that will make thegolddome happy: someone has done a public poll on the Iowa GOP gubernatorial primary. Public Policy Polling found former Governor Terry Branstad leading Bob Vander Plaats 46 percent to 31 percent, with State Representative Rod Roberts well behind at 13 percent. The firm surveyed 474 “likely GOP primary voters” between May 25 and 27, and the margin of error is plus or minus 4.5 percent. The polling memo by Tom Jensen notes, “Branstad gets 42-68% of the vote across the ideological spectrum, but does worst against the 74% conservative majority, edging Tea Party favorite Vander Plaats by just 41-35.”

This poll supports what I’ve been thinking for months about Roberts. He is the best surrogate Branstad could have in this primary, diluting the votes of the social conservative base that doesn’t trust the former governor. If one candidate consolidated the “not Branstad” vote, the topline result would be nearly a dead heat.

If PPP’s survey is accurate, Branstad will win next Tuesday’s primary, but with the advantages he took into this race he should be getting 60 to 70 percent of the Republican vote. He’s done the job before, he will have spent more than $2 million before the primary (more than his opponents combined), and he has been advertising statewide on television and radio since the beginning of April. Roberts and Vander Plaats could manage only limited ad buys, and Vander Plaats just went up on television the day before PPP’s poll was in the field.

Incredibly, this is the first public poll of the Republican primary since last July, when The Iowa Republican blog commissioned a survey by Voter/Consumer research. That poll found Vander Plaats way ahead of the rest of the declared Republican candidates, with only Branstad hypothetically able to make the primary competitive.

Branstad created an exploratory committee to run for governor last October. Since then, Selzer has done two Iowa polls for the Des Moines Register, Research 2000 has done three polls for KCCI-TV, The Iowa Republican commissioned another poll in January, not to mention several Iowa polls by Rasmussen. All of those surveys tested Governor Chet Culver against his Republican challengers but not the Republican primary. The lack of polling on Branstad against Vander Plaats and Roberts is a continuing mystery to me. I read Swing State Project regularly and have seen dozens of polls of Democratic or Republican primaries in other states. You would think that at the very least The Iowa Republican blog would want to poll the GOP primary. The fact that they haven’t suggests that last summer’s primary poll may have been intended primarily to help the people recruiting Branstad to run for governor again. Rasmussen is the most prolific pollster in the country, and has polled Republican primaries in many other states. Maybe Rasmussen really is just interested in setting a narrative rather than polling the most newsworthy races.

PPP also polled the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and found Roxanne Conlin way ahead with 48 percent, compared to 13 percent for Bob Krause and 8 percent for Tom Fiegen.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: Kathie Obradovich highlighted something worth noting from PPP’s polling memo:

Among voters that actually know who Vander Plaats is- whether they see him favorably or unfavorably- he leads Branstad 42-37. The question is if there’s enough time left for Vander Plaats to completely make up the huge gap in name recognition he began the campaign with.

Vander Plaats was never going to be able to match Branstad’s spending dollar for dollar with the huge support for Branstad among Iowa’s business Republican elite. But if Vander Plaats had saved more of what he raised in 2009, he might have been able to raise his name recognition much more this spring.

SECOND UPDATE: Iowa Independent highlighted another part of the polling memo:

There are very clear age divisions in the race. It’s tied among voters under 45, who may not even remember Branstad’s time as Governor. But he’s up 55-20 with senior citizens, who are certainly likely to remember his tenure, and that’s fueling most of his overall victory.

I would think almost anyone over 30 remembers Branstad as governor. I suspect that this discrepancy tells us there are a lot more moderate Republicans over age 45 than under age 45. Branstad leads Vander Plaats among moderates by a huge margin in the poll. The Republican Party has grown much more conservative in the last decade or two, so younger moderates might naturally identify more with Democrats or no-party voters.

Iowa’s primary election is one week from today, and while most of the competitive races are on the Republican side, Democrats do have some choices to make as well. The Sioux City Journal’s Bret Hayworth wrote a good summary of the campaign between Matt Campbell and Mike Denklau in Iowa’s fifth Congressional district, which covers 32 counties.

In most other parts of Iowa, the only choice facing Democrats is on the U.S. Senate part of the primary ballot. Lots of links on the race between Roxanne Conlin, Tom Fiegen and Bob Krause are after the jump.

Since Memorial Day was established a few years after the Civil War, Americans have marked the holiday every year by remembering our war dead (ok, almost all our war dead). In his weekly address, President Barack Obama asked Americans to honor “not just those who’ve worn this country’s uniform, but the men and women who’ve died in its service; who’ve laid down their lives in defense of their fellow citizens; who’ve given their last full measure of devotion to protect the United States of America.”

Every so often I read the I Got The News Today profiles of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. According to an old Jewish teaching, saving one life is equivalent to saving the whole world. The IGTNT diaries, like “Six More Lost to All Who Loved Them,” are a crushing reminder that the death of one person is like the death of the whole world to the people left behind.

The IGTNT series will likely continue for many more years. The number of Americans killed in Afghanistan recently passed 1,000, and we are preparing to send an additional 30,000 troops there. Although we have fewer troops in Iraq now than we did for most of the past seven years, we have more troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined now than we did when Obama became president.  

The price of these wars is also enormous in monetary terms. On May 30 the estimated cost of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq exceeded $1 trillion. We could have done lots of things with that kind of money. On May 27 the U.S. Senate passed yet another war supplemental funding bill, this time for $58.8 billion. On May 28 the House passed the $726 billion Defense Authorization Bill for 2011 (roll call here). Iowa’s House members split on party lines, with Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) supporting them and Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voting no.

Meanwhile, Congress adjourned for the Memorial Day weekend without extending unemployment benefits or passing another jobs bill. This economic relief bill had already been watered down because of “concerns” about deficit spending. You’ll notice few members of Congress are concerned about deficit spending to fund our endless war machine.

For many, Memorial Day is a time to remember lost loved ones, regardless of whether they served in the military. Cedar Rapids Gazette columnist Todd Dorman’s mother recently died, and he wrote this tribute to her.

For some people, Memorial Day is first and foremost the unofficial beginning of summer. Feel free to share any fun plans or picnic recipes in the comments. We’ve been invited to a potluck tomorrow, and I haven’t decided whether to make my favorite chick pea dish (from Madhur Jaffrey’s Indian Cooking), a North African potato salad with olive oil and spices, or a pasta salad with a Chinese-style peanut butter sauce. I like to bring vegan dishes to potlucks so I don’t worry if they sit outside for a few hours. Also, the party I’m attending tomorrow may include some vegetarians and people who keep kosher (they don’t mix meat with dairy in the same meal).

This thread is for anything on your mind this weekend.

UPDATE: Graphs showing number of days in Iraq and number of U.S. deaths in Iraq before and after President George W. Bush announced “Mission Accomplished.”

Donna Buell of Spirit Lake has just been elected to the Sierra Club’s national board, becoming the first Iowan ever to serve in that capacity. She grew up on a farm in Holstein, Iowa and lived out of state for a number of years.

Moving back to her home state 15 years ago, she got involved with the Okoboji Protective Association, Friends of Lakeside Laboratory and Dickinson County Clean Water Alliance.

Buell said she’s something of an anomaly in environmental advocacy groups, with her background in finance and law. When groups such as the Iowa chapter of the Sierra Club learned she could provide free business expertise, she was quickly brought into leadership roles, she said with a chuckle. […]

Buell still has ownership in three Holstein farms she rents to others. She’s big into the quest to rebuild the carbon level in soils to where they were before decades of growing crops depleted minerals. She said farmers like to say they are stewards, and they need to prove it with actions.

“We’ve always known that building the soil back again is the only thing that will sustain farming. Plus, it makes for better crops, you know, (with) the organic matter,” Buell said.

From the Sierra Club’s Iowa Chapter website:

“The Chapter is thrilled that Donna has been elected to the board,” said Jerry Neff, chair of the Iowa Chapter Executive Committee.  “We’ve never had an Iowan represent the Sierra Club on its national board of directors since we organized in Iowa in 1972.  We’re very excited.”

Buell has served in various capacities with the Sierra Club at the local, state and national level.  In 2006, she organized the Prairie Lake Group that encompasses Buena Vista, Clay, Dickinson, Emmet, O’Brian, Osceola, Palo Alto and Pocahontas counties and served as its chair.  Elected to the chapter executive committee, Buell has served as the chapter treasurer since 2008.    Nationally, she currently serves as Budget Officer of the Council of Club Leaders Executive Committee and on the National Finance and Risk Management Advisory Committee.

A volunteer for the environment for the past 20 years, Buell also served as a member of the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission from 2003 to 2007 as an appointee of then-Gov. Tom Vilsack.  

According to Buell, “roughly 4,000 of the 5,000 members are urban residents who live in or near Des Moines, Iowa City or Cedar Falls.”  If you would like to get involved, you can find much more information about the Iowa chapter here. They also have an e-mail discussion group and a Facebook page.

Senator Chuck Grassley’s re-election campaign unveiled its first television commercial of the year yesterday:

Rough transcript by me:

Unidentified woman: “Tightwad.”

Unidentified woman: “Penny-pincher.”

Unidentified man: “He’s frugal.”

Unidentified man: “Blunt.”

Unidentified man: “Straight-talking.”

Unidentified woman: “One of us.”

Female voice-over: Chuck Grassley visits every county every year to stay in touch. He’s a farmer and a senator. He’ll do what needs to be done. He’s just like Iowa. Chuck Grassley works … and he never forgets he works for us.

Grassley: I’m Chuck Grassley for Iowa, and I approved this message.

Once Roxanne Conlin went up on television, I figured it wouldn’t be long before Grassley’s campaign responded. He has more than $5 million in the bank and can probably afford to run television commercials from now until November.

Although this commercial doesn’t mention Grassley’s likely Democratic opponent in the general election, I infer from the language in this ad that he’ll run against Conlin as a rich, free-spending lawyer who’s not “one of us.”

This doesn’t seem like a strong commercial to me, but it shows Grassley recognizes he can’t afford to be seen as the candidate representing special interests. The female voice-over suggests to me that Grassley knows he needs to shore up support among women. The most recent Rasmussen poll showed Conlin trailing narrowly among women, and the most recent Research 2000 poll for KCCI showed Conlin slightly ahead of Grassley among women.

Grassley will be hard-pressed to defend his “penny-pincher” reputation when he has voted for every blank check for war and the Wall Street bailout. He also voted for every Bush tax cut for the wealthy, which massively increased our national debt and budget deficits. In the current fiscal year, “a staggering 52.5 percent of the benefits [from the Bush tax cuts] will go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers. Meanwhile, Grassley voted against many policies that benefit hard-working Iowans, like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

I’ll post more links on the Senate race soon. For now, share your thoughts on this commercial and the campaign.

To hear Iowa Republicans tell it, our state has suffered terribly under the leadership of job-killing, overspending Democrats. The reality, as measured by the conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is quite different:

Iowa’s focus on entrepreneurship, innovation and exports has led to an eighth-place ranking on a list of top economic-performing states compiled by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Chamber Foundation.

Iowa ranked high overall as “a solid performer across most of our metrics,” according to the chamber’s newly released Enterprising States survey, largely because “Iowa’s strength is perhaps its stability. The state’s largest cluster, agribusiness, food processing and technology, grew at a 1 percent rate since 2002, significantly better performing than the same group of industries nationally.”

The business group also listed Iowa seventh under “top export performers” due to overseas trade offices that provide help to Iowa companies looking to tap international markets. According to the study, “efforts are paying off, as the state places fourth in growth of exports as a share of gross state product.”

Read more at the Des Moines Register’s site, or download the whole report here.

Governor Chet Culver’s office recapped some other favorable reports by outside analysts looking at Iowa’s economy:

[E]arlier this year, Forbes Magazine, the national economic and business journal, named Des Moines as the No. 1 city in America for businesses and careers, and ranked Cedar Rapids as the No. 1 city for projected job growth.

In 2008, Iowa had the eighth-fastest growing economy in the nation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. CNBC’s 2009 “Top States for Business” survey ranks Iowa the fourth best in the nation and No. 1 for low costs of doing business. Finally, last year MarketWatch, another national financial publication, named Des Moines No. 1 in the country for doing business.

Unemployment is too high as we come out of the worst recession since World War II, but Iowa’s unemployment rate is still low by national standards. Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, our state’s budget is balanced, and our per capita debt burden is low, which is why every major credit rating agency has given Iowa top marks in the past year.

So far I haven’t seen any Iowa Republican reaction to the Chamber of Commerce report. I’ll update this post with any relevant comments.

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 today to pass a compromise that will probably lead to repeal of the prohibition on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to vote for the compromise. Jim Webb of Virginia was the only Democrat to vote against it. I wouldn’t have predicted that Webb would vote no when people like Evan Bayh, Robert Byrd and Ben Nelson voted yes.

This bill appears to have the votes to pass on the Senate floor. Representative Patrick Murphy (an Iraq War veteran) is offering a comparable amendment to the Defense Authorization bill in the House. Technically, it’s not correct to call this a “repeal” of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, because the legislation allows officials at the White House, Pentagon and Joint Chiefs to leave the policy in place. Here’s what will happen if the amendment makes it into the final bill passed by the House and Senate:

When the President signs the Department of Defense Authorization bill into law, DADT will not instantly be repealed. Repeal would take place only after the study group completes its work in December 2010 and after the President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense all certify that repeal will not hurt military readiness or unit cohesion.

So, gay and lesbian soldiers will continue to be discharged several months (and perhaps several years) from now. Still, I agree with Adam Bink; this has to be viewed as a “giant step” toward taking Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell off the books. Ideally, Congress would have passed stronger legislation, but I’d rather have them pass this deal now than shoot for something better next year. If Republicans took control of the House or Senate, we’d have no hope of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell for a long time.

Iowa’s senators don’t have seats on the Armed Services Committee, but Tom Harkin is expected to support repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Chuck Grassley opposes moving forward on this issue until the Pentagon has completed its review of the policy, and it sounds like even if the report recommends repeal, Grassley is a likely no vote: “I’m going to be listening to see what it does for readiness and our national security. Because we’ve had the policy in place for 18 years… and it seems to have worked and not affected the readiness.”

Senator, that policy didn’t work so well for “over 13,500 well trained, able-bodied soldiers willing to take a bullet for their country” who have been “kicked out of the military simply because they were gay.”

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: The House passed the amendment 234 to 194 tonight, with five Republicans voting yes and 26 Democrats voting no. I will post a link to the roll call when it’s available, but I think all three Iowa Democrats voted yes. Leonard Boswell’s statement on why he supports repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is after the jump.

UPDATE: Here is the House roll call. Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack did vote yes, along with most of the Democratic caucus. Tom Latham and Steve King voted no, with almost all the House Republicans.

Bob Vander Plaats’ first television commercial didn’t mention his Republican rivals in the governor’s race, but a new commercial released today draws distinctions on immigration:

Rough transcript:

Voice-over: Only one candidate for governor supports Arizona’s tough illegal immigration law: Bob Vander Plaats (visual shows Des Moines Sunday Register headline, “Immigration divides GOP trio: 2 candidates say it’s a federal issue; Vander Plaats endorses Arizona law”)

Vander Plaats speaking to camera: Chet Culver and Terry Branstad want to wait for the federal government to do something about illegal immigration. We’ve waited long enough. I’m tired of relying on the federal government and getting no results. As governor, I’ll give our state and local law enforcement the authority to enforce immigration laws. It’s not just common sense; it’s the right thing to do.

The Republican candidates sparred on the immigration issue during the second gubernatorial debate a few weeks ago. All three candidates engaged in misleading and disgraceful pandering. It’s sad that Vander Plaats embraces the Arizona approach. Not only does the new law encroach on civil liberties, it would be very expensive for local governments to implement. Vander Plaats denies the obvious costs that would accompany this kind of law.

This commercial looks like a “hail Mary” pass to me. I understand why Vander Plaats would want to go negative, but criticizing Branstad’s record as governor, as he did during the third gubernatorial debate, would be more honorable than scoring points on the Arizona law. Maybe their internal polling suggests immigration is a salient issue for the Republican base.

This commercial evokes the usual mixed feelings I have when I think about the Republican primary. Part of me would like to see Vander Plaats win the nomination, because I believe Culver would easily beat him. The other part of me wants Vander Plaats and his ill-informed demagoguery to be irrelevant to Iowa politics after June 8.  

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich made three stops in Iowa yesterday. First, he headlined a fundraiser in Cedar Rapids for the Republican House Majority fund, then he was a featured speaker in the American Future Fund’s lecture series in Davenport, and finally he gave the keynote at a Polk County GOP dinner in Des Moines. The Republican crowds loved him.

IowaPolitics.com covered Gingrich in Davenport and in Cedar Rapids. Lynda Waddington focused on Gingrich’s remarks about immigration, which weren’t part of his prepared speech. The Des Moines Register has more on what Gingrich told reporters in Des Moines.

I see Gingrich was railing against President Obama’s handling of the ongoing disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I’m not happy about Obama’s policy on offshore drilling, but Gingrich has zero credibility to be posturing as an environmentalist. What did Gingrich or his fellow House Republicans ever do to limit offshore drilling or its potential consequences for oceanic and coastal ecosystems?

Although Gingrich pleased Republican crowds with harsh criticism of the current administration, he assured journalists yesterday that Republicans are not the “party of no”:

Gingrich said his book, “To Save America: Stopping Obama’s Secular Socialist Machine,” is two-thirds solutions. “If you look at what Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is doing to design a contract this fall, it’s all positive. If you look at Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) work on entitlement reform, it’s probably the most comprehensive reform done in modern times.”

Republicans should pray that American voters never seriously examine Ryan’s work on entitlement reform.

Getting back to Gingrich, I can’t take anyone seriously who calls the corporate-friendly Obama a “socialist.” As for Gingrich’s positive agenda, it’s notable that he “declined to specify federal programs he would cut” to pay for the big tax cuts he advocates. And let’s take a look at his five major tax cut proposals:

* A one-year, 50 percent reduction in Social Security and Medicare taxes both for employee and employer

* A 100 percent write-off of new equipment

* Abolishing the capital gains tax like China

* Matching the Irish tax rate for corporations at 12.5 percent. He said today U.S. corporations pay the highest taxes in the world with state and federal taxes combained, which he compared to a “backpack with 60 pounds of weight in it.”

* Abolishing the death tax permanently

The first point would exacerbate solvency problems facing the Social Security and Medicare funds, which would bolster the case of conservatives who want to dismantle the programs.

Eliminating the capital gains and estate taxes would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans while adding significantly to our long-term deficits.

Gingrich’s claims about corporate taxes are misleading. Thanks to several common deductions, extensions and loopholes, the effective corporate tax burden in the U.S. is lower than in most other developed economies. In fact, corporations have been paying a declining share of total state taxes in Iowa and across the country for decades.

Gingrich didn’t rule out a 2012 presidential bid yesterday, saying he will announce his intentions in February or March 2011. If he does run for president, he will not bypass Iowa. His wife (a Luther College graduate) enjoys spending time here, Gingrich noted. I don’t see Gingrich as a strong potential candidate and will be surprised if he runs. If he has presidential ambitions, though, he must run in 2012. By 2016 he will be 73 years old.

I see Gingrich tried to hint that Governor Chet Culver has ethical problems. Gingrich isn’t on high moral ground when his American Solutions organization routinely uses fake polls to raise money from the conservative grassroots. Polling expert Mark Blumenthal called the sales pitch from Gingrich’s group “a clear cut example of fundraising under the guise of a survey,” also known as FRUGGing. The Marketing Research Association considers FRUGGing unethical.

I will say this for Gingrich: at least the guy on his third marriage didn’t try to lecture Iowans about family values.

I noticed that Gingrich didn’t endorse anyone in the Republican gubernatorial primary. He was also silent about Bob Vander Plaats’ plan for the Iowa governor to halt same-sex marriage by executive order. Last year Vander Plaats claimed Gingrich was among those who backed his plan.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Iowa Republicans love to bash Leonard Boswell as a “liberal,” but that label is laughable when you examine Boswell’s lifetime voting record in Congress. The Progressive Punch database shows that Boswell currently ranks as the 224th most progressive member of the House of Representatives (near the bottom of the Democratic caucus). Progressive Punch divides Congressional votes into 14 categories, and the highest ranking Bowell has in any category is 174th. In other words, Boswell is less progressive than the average House Democrat on just about any issue. On “crucial votes,” which are decided by a narrow margin in the House, Boswell has voted with progressives only about 65 percent of the time during his Congressional career. (Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack aren’t as liberal as you probably think they are either.)

Progressive Punch scores only take votes into account, but members of Congress can influence policies in other ways too. This week the Savetheinternet.com coalition sent out an action alert:

Seventy-four members of Congress have just signed an industry-drafted letter urging the FCC to abandon efforts to protect Net Neutrality and promote universal broadband access. By signing this letter, these members have sold you out to Comcast, Verizon and AT&T.

Click here to read the industry-drafted letter. The savetheinternet.com coalition annotated the letter with background countering many points of “misinformation.” All the House members who signed were Democrats, but Boswell is the only Iowa Democrat on the list. Major players in the telecommunications industry want to undermine the FCC’s authority, and the letter depicts that as needed to secure private investment in expanding broadband networks. Boswell may think he is merely helping his rural constituents get broadband access, but if corporations get their way on this matter, the likely outcome would be a framework allowing internet providers to charge content providers more to have their sites load.

Click here for more background on what net neutrality is and why some corporations want to undermine it. Excerpts:

Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. […]

The nation’s largest telephone and cable companies — including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable — want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won’t load at all.

They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking services offered by their competitors.

These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of a level playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services — or those of big corporations that can afford the steep tolls — and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road. […]

Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since its inception. […] And non-discrimination provisions like Net Neutrality have governed the nation’s communications networks since the 1920s.

But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications Commission, Net Neutrality — the foundation of the free and open Internet — was put in jeopardy. Now, cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.

Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about “deregulation,” the cable and phone giants don’t want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.

According to the Savetheinternet coalition, Boswell has accepted $53,500 in campaign contributions from telecom companies or their lobbyists during his Congressional career. Please take a moment to contact Boswell at one of his offices or through his official website to urge him to support the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458). You can also sign an online petition here.

UPDATE: At Iowa Independent, Adam Sullivan reports that in March, Boswell “held a dinner fundraiser hosted by Lyndon Boozer (a lobbyist for AT&T) and Roger Mott (a lobbyist for Verizon), and a breakfast fundraiser hosted by Louis Dupart (a lobbyist for Verizon).”

The plot thickens in Iowa’s second Congressional district, where Steve Rathje has released a new television commercial called “Bench Miller-Meeks”:

Rough transcript:

Voice-over: Two years ago, Mariannette Miller-Meeks challenged Dave Loebsack. She lost by double digits. [visual shows fake newspaper headline: LOEBSACK WINS BIG Loebsack 57% vs. Miller-Meeks 38%]

Rathje: I coached football for several years, and sometimes the returning quarterback didn’t give us our best opportunity to win, so we were forced to make some changes. I believe the same is true for politics.

I’m Steve Rathje. My experience: cutting spending and bringing jobs back home to America. Dave Loebsack’s record: unsustainable spending and a disregard for the constitution.

I’m Steve Rathje, and I approved this message.

It’s gutsy for Rathje to come out against second chances, since he lost the GOP primary for U.S. Senate in 2008. But as attack ads go, this one’s tame. He didn’t take any personal shots at Miller-Meeks or even call her a moderate. He’s just saying she doesn’t give Republicans the best opportunity to beat Loebsack. Then he presents his background as a sharp contrast to the incumbent.

I laughed to hear Rathje hit Loebsack on “unsustainable spending.” Rathje’s promoting a tax holiday plan that would add at least $400 billion to the deficit in two months. Such details probably don’t matter to the typical Republican primary voter, though.

Yesterday I wrote that I still consider Miller-Meeks a slight favorite in the primary. This commercial changes my view somewhat. If she sticks to her plan of running no tv ads before the June 8 primary, she leaves this message unchallenged. It’s not clear that she has the time or the funds to respond on television, and even if she does, I don’t know how to answer Rathje’s point without calling more attention to her double-digit loss to Loebsack. Miller-Meeks seems slightly less right-wing than the other Republicans, which makes her a better general election candidate, but no one won a Republican primary lately by claiming to be the most moderate person in the field.

My hunch is that Rob Gettemy benefits as much as Rathje from this commercial, if not more. Gettemy’s the freshest face in the Republican field, and his own advertising probably gives him as much visibility as Rathje outside his base in Linn County.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers?

UPDATE: The second district candidates clashed at a forum May 26 in Mount Pleasant. James Q. Lynch has the story at the Cedar Rapids Gazette. Excerpt:

Gettemy told the crowd of about 100 people sitting on the lawn outside American Outdoors south of Mount Pleasant he offers the best opportunity to defeat Loebsack because voters are looking for a fresh face, “not a politician.”

His rivals have all run before and lost – “lost big time,” Gettemy said.

Without mentioning names, he noted that Rathje and Reed, who faced off in a U.S. Senate primary two years ago, are still fighting that battle and Miller-Meeks is willing to change her comments to suit various audiences. […]

“You can tell it’s campaign silly season, Miller-Meeks said. “I’ve been smeared so many times that I feel like a bug on a windshield.”

She called for uniting the fiscal, social and constitutional conservatives. “We need all three tent poles” to defeat Loebsack, she said. Miller-Meeks and reminded her rivals that “whatever we do before the primary can be used by the Democrats after the primary.”

United, Miller-Meeks said, the 2nd District can become “the Massachusetts of the Midwest – not in ideology, but in victory.”

Also, Kim Smith of Cedar Rapids claims Rathje is pro-abortion and is trying to spread the word on Twitter and via YouTube. I don’t know whether she or the group calling itself “Coalition for Iowa Values” has endorsed a different candidate in this primary.

SECOND UPDATE: Miller-Meeks responds to the new Rathje ad:

Miller-Meeks called the video “a deceitful, deceptive attack by someone going into a last minute panic” and threw the football analogies back at Rathje.

“So we’re supposed to pick someone who has been sitting on the bench and couldn’t win his primary after running for two years rather than someone who has been playing the game?” she asked. […]

Rathje was the first to run TV ads and Gettemy followed. Reed plans to air aids in June. Miller-Meeks doesn’t plan to run TV ads, preferring to focus her advertising, primarily direct mail, on likely primary voters.

“I have the resources to do what we need,” she said. Referring to her professional training as an ophthalmologist, Miller-Meeks said she works with lasers and prefers a laser focus over a scattershot approach.

“I look at the audience to determine the best method to reach the primary voters and to get them to the polls,” she said.

Senator Tom Harkin is among 13 senators (eight from the Banking Committee, five from the Agriculture Committee) named to the conference committee that will reconcile differences between the financial reform bills approved by the House last December and the Senate last week. The House will also have 13 representatives on the conference committee. For lists of the key differences between the bills, see Pat Garofalo’s Wonk Room chart and this post by David Dayen. Harkin’s office released this statement on Tuesday:

“Over the last year, Wall Street has repeatedly tried to kill this reform with hundreds of lobbyists and millions of dollars in ads. From my seat at the table, I look forward to ensuring that effort will have been in vain,” Senator Harkin said. “I plan to do everything in my power to preserve the bill’s integrity, strengthen its consumer protections, and stop the reckless financial wheeling and dealing that destabilized our economy and threw millions of Americans out of work. And, given the dangers they pose if not properly regulated, I plan to focus on preserving the key reforms in the Senate-passed derivatives portion of the bill. The Restoring American Financial Stability Act is a step in the right direction, and I look forward to improving it in conference.”

He’ll have his work cut out for him if he wants to preserve the Senate language on derivatives. Dayen wrote last week,

Everyone expects the 716 provision, which forces the mega-banks to spin off their swaps trading desks, to be excised in conference. But Michael Greenberger believes something like it will be retained. The House’s derivatives piece is a mess and nearly useless, but [conference committee chairman] Barney Frank has admitted a mistake on that front, and wants to preserve strong rules against derivatives, like in the Senate bill.

The smart money is on the conference committee dropping the strong derivatives language after the Arkansas Democratic primary runoff election on June 8. Until then, corporate hack Senator Blanche Lincoln needs to be able to brag about standing up to Wall Street lobbyists.

Here’s another battle Harkin should fight during the conference negotiations. On Monday the Senate passed a non-binding instruction to the conference committee supporting “a special exemption to shield automobile dealers from the oversight of a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.” The House bill already contains that exemption. Harkin was among the 30 senators who voted against that instruction, while Republican Chuck Grassley was among the 60 who voted to limit the oversight of the new consumer protection unit. Of the 13 senators named to the conference committee, six voted against the instruction on automobile dealers, four voted for it, and three did not vote (roll call).

According to the White House blog,

The President has been clear on this issue, repeatedly urging members of the Senate to fight efforts of the special interests and their lobbyists to weaken consumer protections.  The fact is, auto dealer-lending is an $850 billion industry, which is larger than the entire credit card industry and they make nearly 80 percent of the automobile loans in our country.

Is there any question that these lenders should be subject to the same standards as any local or community bank that provides loans?

Auto dealer-lenders sell auto loans to working families every single day, and while most dealers are no doubt above board, some cannot resist the bigger profits that come from inflating rates, hiding fees, and tacking on over-priced add-ons.

In this kind of situation, President George W. Bush would make his demands clear and tell members of Congress to send him “a bill I can sign.” We’ll see how far President Obama is willing to go to keep consumer protection provisions in the Wall Street reform bill.  

Four Republicans are running against two-term Representative Dave Loebsack in Iowa’s second district. As the June 8 primary approaches, I see more and more news about this race.

Follow me after the jump for links and analysis about Mariannette Miller Meeks, Rob Gettemy, Steve Rathje and Chris Reed.  

The day after Rand Paul won the Republican primary for U.S. Senate in Kentucky, his views on civil rights legislation sparked a media feeding frenzy so intense that Paul became only the third guest in recent history to cancel a scheduled appearance on “Meet the Press.”

Several prominent Republicans, including Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley, have distanced themselves from Paul’s ideas about whether the government should be able to bar discrimination by private businesses. Paul walked back his comments on civil rights too.

I contacted the campaign of Iowa’s Libertarian candidate for governor, Eric Cooper, to get his take on Paul’s remarks and government regulation of businesses in general. Cooper’s responses are after the jump.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats starts running this television commercial today:

Rough transcript by me:

Voice-over: Scandals, mismanagement, loaded budgets. Chet Culver has been a jobs killer.

Vander Plaats: Iowa needs a new governor. I’ll make Iowa the business startup capital of the world by cutting taxes, shrinking government, reducing our long-term debt, and marketing Iowa as a right-to-work state. I’ll create real jobs by growing our state the right way. It’s not just common sense, it’s the right thing to do.

I am shocked by the poor quality of this commercial. Vander Plaats speaks much more naturally in clips I’ve seen from his stump speeches than he does when he talks straight to the camera. They should have ditched the boilerplate anti-Culver visuals at the beginning and pulled 30 seconds worth of material from some of his campaign rallies, or even from the gubernatorial debates. I know I’m not the target audience for this commercial, but it doesn’t seem like a good way to introduce himself to the voters.

If Vander Plaats had not spent so much of what his campaign raised in 2009, he might have been up on television more than two weeks before the June 8 primary. Then he could have introduced himself in an all-positive commercial about his background, and perhaps run a couple of different ads on his issue agenda (making Iowa the business capital of the world).

One good thing about the ad is its focus on economic issues. There’s no reason for Vander Plaats to talk about abortion or same-sex marriage in a commercial. The Republican primary voters who care most about those issues already know where he stands.

Speaking of social issues, I heard a radio news story this morning about Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts being against letting gay couples adopt children. The same brief story paraphrased Terry Branstad as saying gay couples should only be allowed to adopt if no one else is able to take care of the child. I haven’t found a link to the story yet, and I don’t know if it refers to new comments over the weekend. During last Thursday’s Republican debate, which Iowa Public Television broadcast again Sunday, Roberts and Vander Plaats both said same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt or become foster parents. Branstad gave a more nuanced answer: “I believe that adoption should be in the best interests of the child, I think generally that means that you’d want to have it with a man and woman because that’s the best environment for a child to grow up in.”

That exchange illustrates why having Roberts in the race is so good for Branstad. Roberts prevents the Republican primary from being a two-man race, which would favor the more conservative candidate. Now Branstad only needs a plurality against two rivals who are giving all of the “correct” answers to voters on the religious right. Vander Plaats has support from plenty of social conservatives, such as Bill Salier and most notably the Iowa Family Policy Center, but Roberts prevents Vander Plaats from consolidating the conservative base.

Vander Plaats has something else to worry about today besides Roberts. Bret Hayworth reports in the Sioux City Journal that the organization Opportunities Unlimited replaced Vander Plaats as CEO because he wasn’t raising enough money to keep the non-profit functioning. The Vander Plaats campaign will try to downplay the report, because the main on-the-record source for the article is former board member Jackie Kibbie-Williams. She is the daughter of Iowa State Senator Jack Kibbie (a Democrat). But The Iowa Republican blog, which favors Branstad in the governor’s race, is already hyping the report. While Chris Rants was still running for governor last year, he raised questions about Vander Plaats’ management of Opportunities Unlimited. At that time, former board member Kim Hoogeveen defended Vander Plaats strongly, but Hoogeveen didn’t dispute the Kibbie-Williams account when contacted by Hayworth for today’s piece.

Share any thoughts about the Republican primary in this thread.

UPDATE: Todd Dorman noticed “Huckabee’s trademark subliminal background cross” in the Vander Plaats commercial and had this to say about Salier’s endorsement: “In addition to helping Tom Harkin become senator for life by hobbling his last credible opponent, Salier also endorsed President Tom Tancredo and President Fred Thompson. So clearly, this is a game-changer.”

Roxanne Conlin, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, begins television advertising across Iowa this week. I’m not able to embed the commercial, but click here to watch. The Conlin campaign released this transcript:

“I’m Roxanne Conlin. Taking on the special interests has been the cause of my life. Like taking on the big banks to help family farms at risk of foreclosure. I took on corrupt politicians and corporations who violated the public trust. I’m running for U.S. Senate to take this fight to Washington. Fight for relief on Main Street, not more bailouts for Wall Street. Because the special interests have had their turn. Now, it’s our turn. I’m Roxanne Conlin and I approved this message.”

I noticed a small omission from that transcript: in the commercial, Conlin says, “As a prosecutor I took on corrupt politicians…” That’s important, because many Iowans may not remember that she served as U.S. attorney for Iowa’s southern district from 1977 to 1981.

This ad is a shorter version of the introductory video Conlin’s campaign released last fall, which I discussed here. It’s a fairly basic message for Iowans who haven’t heard of Conlin, and it makes sense for her to raise her profile just before the June 8 primary. Though this ad doesn’t mention five-term Republican incumbent Chuck Grassley, it starts building the case Conlin will make later in the campaign: Grassley has stood up for special interests throughout his career. I believe Grassley voted for the financial reform bill last week in order to undercut the narrative Conlin will build against him.

All three Democratic challengers to Grassley attended a Johnson County Democrats event over the weekend. John Deeth blogged the “Grassley retirement party” here and posted photos here. At Iowa Independent, Adam Sullivan posted video of Bob Krause and Tom Fiegen criticizing Conlin. I agree with Krause and Fiegen on many domestic policies, and I appreciate the way Krause has spoken out against our military involvement in Afghanistan. However, they are aiming at the wrong target in attacking Conlin now. No one’s under the illusion that it will be easy to beat Grassley, but it’s a stretch for Krause and Fiegen to suggest that they are stronger candidates than Conlin. She has more name recognition already and is in a better position to campaign statewide than they are.

Late last week Conlin called on Grassley to denounce Kentucky Republican Rand Paul’s comments about civil rights. Paul suggested that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate. Without mentioning Paul’s name, Grassley’s spokesperson told Iowa Independent,

Sen. Grassley’s position is that if a place is open for business it should be open for everyone.  You may know that Grassley was a co-sponsor of the 1982 and 2006 reauthorizations of the Voting Rights Act, the 1965 companion to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  He was in the middle of the agreement reached on the 1982 legislation. Grassley also supported the 1991 extension of the Civil Rights Act.  That was the last major amendment to the Civil Rights Act.  It was broadened in 1972, after its passage in 1964.

Grassley is wise to put some distance between himself and Paul’s views. As Assistant Iowa Attorney General in the 1970s, Conlin prosecuted the first cases under our state’s civil rights law.  

Some farmers are afraid of me.

I know this because a farmer named Jerry wrote a letter to the Des Moines Register recently saying that they are scared.  It would be a “scary scenario for mainstream agriculture” if I got elected as Iowa Secretary of Agriculture, he said.   Francis Thicke is a “true believer in everything organic,” he shuddered.

Running for office is an adventure.  But I never expected to learn that Iowa farmers, who are among the most resilient, shrewd and creative people on the planet, are afraid of a mild-mannered organic dairy farmer with a PhD in Agronomy and some ideas for helping them meet challenges such as peak oil.   So I thought I would write him a letter to reassure him that I’m not scary, because if we don’t get our act together to deal with the real challenges of peak oil, the disruptions caused by climate change, and the growing monopoly power of corporate agribusiness, then we really will have cause for concern.

____________________

Dear Jerry,

Don’t be afraid.  This is America, and no one is going to make you “go organic.”  It’s the Big Ag interests that want to limit your choices, not me.   You might save money and protect water quality and the health of your family if you understood how to apply sustainable farming methods that do not require farm chemicals, but you don’t have to.

No one is going to force you to make your own biofuels on the farm from perennial crops that make your farm resilient and energy efficient.  Nor will you be forced to drive a hydrogen or ammonia-powered tractor with fuel derived from wind power.   If diesel prices soar in the next few years, as the Defense Department[pdf] is warning us, it’s your right to pay $6 a gallon or more and keep right on using it.  There may be shortages in our future by 2015, but I’m sure you’ll be able to find fuel at some price, somewhere.

You have the right to keep doing things the way you always have, and not take advantage of science-based ways to bring your costs down and prepare for a future without abundant petrochemicals.  All I am offering is a vision for a thriving agriculture in the absence of cheap oil, and leadership to meet the challenges that we know are coming.   Energy will be a huge game-changer over the coming decade–for agriculture, and for everything else.