State Representative Paul Bell, a Democrat representing Iowa House district 41 (Newton area) for nine terms, died today. He was only 59 and had been diagnosed with stomach cancer last year. Despite extensive treatments, the cancer spread quickly. Last week Bell’s family told journalists that he had been hospitalized with advanced cancer. Jennifer Jacobs reported for the Des Moines Register,

During this past legislative session, which ran January to March, Bell had chemotherapy and radiation treatment throughout. But he didn’t miss a day at the Iowa Capitol.

As a legislator for 17 years, Bell, a former Newton police officer, was best known for his dedication to the environment. He also worked extensively on law enforcement and public safety issues.

Today Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy released this statement:

“We are deeply saddened by the loss of Rep. Paul Bell.  Our thoughts and prayers are with his wife, Nikki, and their two children.

As a police office and legislator from Newton , he spent his life keeping his community safe and making Iowa  a better place to live.  After serving 18 years in the Iowa House and chairing the Natural Resources Committee, Iowans will benefit from Rep. Bell’s passion and commitment to preserving our natural resources for generations to come.  He will be sorely missed in the Iowa House.”

Please feel free to share your thoughts and memories in this thread.

UPDATE: Iowa House Republican leader Kraig Paulsen released the following statement: “Our thoughts and prayers go out to Rep. Bell’s family during this difficult time. Rep. Bell was a respected legislator who gave his time and energy serving others in the state legislature.”

Environmental organizer and activist Christian Ucles commented:

Iowa Legislator Paul Bell died. He will be sorely missed, he was a man larger than life. A kind, Compassionate, caring man. God Bless You

SECOND UPDATE: Statement from Representative Leonard Boswell:

“Paul Bell was a strong advocate for Newton and Jasper County in the Iowa House and an important partner of mine in representing those communities. I had the opportunity to serve with him for three years during my time as President of the Iowa Senate and I can’t say enough about his tireless commitment to his constituents. My wife, Dody, and I send our thoughts and prayers to Paul’s wife, Niki, and his children.”

Republican secretary of state candidate Matt Schultz launched a second television commercial CORRECTION: web ad called “Not the Chicago Way”:

Transcript by me:

I’m Matt Schultz, and I’m running for Iowa secretary of state because I’m worried about the future of my children and the future of your children and grandchildren. It’s time for new leadership in Des Moines, and I’m prepared to stand up and fight for fair and honest elections. Vote early, vote often might be the Chicago way, but it’s not the Iowa way. I’m Matt Schultz, and I approved this message because I’m a conservative Republican fighting to protect the most important right of all: your right to vote.

Like Schultz’s first ad, this commercial raises the specter of voter fraud without any evidence that this has been a problem in Iowa.

When Schultz says, “Vote early, vote often might be the Chicago way,” the visual is a smiling Barack Obama in front of Obama/Biden campaign signs. The hint is sure to play well with Republican primary voters, many of whom may believe the 2008 election was stolen. That’s easier to accept than the reality of a Democratic presidential candidate clobbering the Republican.

Journalists should ask Schultz if he really believes (as this commercial implies) that Barack Obama got where he is because of Chicago-style election fraud. Then they should ask him to prove that “vote early, vote often” has happened even once in Iowa during the past decade or two.

When Schultz says “I’m Matt Schultz, and I approved this message,” the visual shows the words, “TRUST BUT VERIFY.” Schultz used the same Ronald Reagan catch phrase in his first ad, although the Republican icon’s famous words have nothing to do with voter fraud.

Your unintentional comedy of the day comes from Polk County Republican Party chairman Ted Sporer’s blog, commenting on Schultz’s commercial:

The only reason to oppose photo ID for voting is to perpetuate fraud. No other good faith explanation is possible. Although we are lucky to have the rarest of animals, an honest and competent Democrat, serving as Iowa’s SoS, Mike Mauro’s Democrat colleagues are your more garden variety and ethically challenged L/S/Ds.

As I discussed here, photo ID laws threaten to disenfranchise large numbers of voters (the 12 percent of the population lacking a photo ID) in order to solve a virtually non-existent problem (impersonating another voter at a polling place). That’s why advocacy groups who work to protect “the most important right of all, your right to vote” almost universally oppose photo ID laws.

In case you were wondering, L/S/Ds means “Labor/Socialist/Democrats” in “the real Sporer” lingo.

Schultz may pander his way to his party’s nomination, but his rhetoric ignores a fact that even Sporer grudgingly acknowledges: Secretary of State Mike Mauro is honest and highly competent. No one active in politics today has done more to safeguard fair and honest elections in Iowa than Mauro.

A critical Democratic primary contest is taking place in House district 66, where Clair Rudison is challenging two-term State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad. I discussed this race here. A Bleeding Heartland reader who lives in the district sent me images of direct-mail pieces Rudison’s campaign has sent out during the last week or so. I’ve posted the images after the jump. One says marriage is a “building block of our community,” noting that Clair Rudison wants to “let the people vote” while Ako Abdul-Samad “has consistently voted against allowing the Iowa House to bring this matter to the people.” Another points out that Ako voted for increasing vehicle registration fees. A third says Ako voted for creating the Iowa Film Office and therefore “opened the door for your tax money to be stolen by Hollywood producers.” The fourth piece draws a contrast between Ako and Rudison on all of the above issues (Iowa Film Office, vehicle fee increases, and allowing Iowans to vote on marriage).

Rudison implies that “a majority of Iowans” oppose Ako’s stance on marriage equality, but the latest KCCI poll suggests a majority favor same-sex marriage rights. House district 66 contains some of the most gay-friendly neighborhoods in Des Moines (Drake area, Sherman Hill, “East Village”), so it’s far-fetched to portray Ako as out of step with his constituents.

Rudison unfairly alleges on one mailer, “Instead of tax dollars being spent to fight crime, improve education or increase access to health care, Ako gave our money to Hollywood.” During Ako’s two terms in the Iowa House, Democrats have allocated lots of money to fighting crime, improving education and expanding access to health care, especially for children. I’m no fan of the film tax credit, but the money we wasted on that program didn’t stop Democrats from expanding children’s health care and voluntary preschool for four- and five-year-olds. I was amused to read that Rudison claims to have “opposed creation of the Film Office.” Is there a public record of that? Only one member of the Iowa House and two members of the Iowa Senate voted against creating the film tax credit. Rudison was a pastor in Fort Dodge at the time.

In an overview of this race at Iowa Independent, Jason Hancock noted that Rudison “has focused his campaign on issues like education and the state budget, pointing to the Forrest Avenue Library’s decision to close on Fridays and Saturdays due to budget cuts […].” Although Rudison hasn’t said much about gay marriage, the Iowa Family PAC (which is connected to the Iowa Family Policy Center) is supporting his campaign. Activists on the religious right have reason to support Rudison because no Republican has a prayer of winning House district 66. In addition, the only House Democrat who has consistently voted with Republicans on marriage issues (Dolores Mertz) is retiring. House Republicans would love to have Rudison join the Democratic caucus so they can continue to claim bipartisan support for their efforts to bring a constitutional amendment on marriage to a vote.

Ed Fallon represented House district 66 for 14 years and knows the area well. I share his assessment that Ako “should win this [primary] easily, but he’s not taking anything for granted, which is smart.” Ako has strong roots in the community, and he won a seat on the Des Moines School Board before running for the state legislature. He’s been making lots of voter contacts and has the endorsement of AFSCME. One Iowa’s political action committee, the Fairness Fund, has an organizer working in the district too. However, Rudison has been campaigning actively, and I don’t doubt there are many voters upset about budget cuts affecting their families, schools and local library. If you or any of your Democratic friends live in this district, please do what you can to get out the vote for Ako on Tuesday.

So, the “Blog Czar” controls at Bleeding Heartland are going to be “loaned” to me for a bit (june 10th, I believe) and I've decided to dedicate some posts to conservation issues.  Imagine that, campaign manager for Iowa's Water & Land Legacy taking the opportunity to toot his own campaign's horn on the #1 political blog in Iowa….!

Well, that's not my plan.  I plan to feature posts from a number of conservation organizations in Iowa, and from out of state, over that week.  Of course, these organizations are all members of Iowa's Water & Land Legacy, but they will be telling their own stories and talking about the good work that they do.

There is regular discussion on this blog, and elsewhere, of environmental issues, but there are subtle differents between environmentalist ethics and conservation ethics.  Many concepts and core values are shared, but there is a reason for the difference in framing and I hope that some of the posts shared over the week help illuminate those differences in an objective way. More below the fold…(and a sweet new video…)

This diary is actually a response to a desmoinesdem post earlier today.  I was going to make a comment, but my response was more robust, so here are my two cents that attempts to answer the burning question:

How did former Governor Terry Branstad avoid a Tea-Party challenger, when so many other Republicans around the U.S. have not?

Let’s be clear.  Everyone knows that Terry Branstad was not a pure conservative while he was governor of Iowa.  However, this year we have seen several candidates who were challenged from the right because many believed that they were not conservative enough, whether it be Charlie Crist in Florida, or Senator Bob Bennett in Utah.  To be clear, this is happening on the Democratic side too (i.e. Senator Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas and Senator Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania), so this is not only one party’s quest for purity.  However, this post is about the GOP.

About 57 percent of likely Iowa Republican primary voters support Terry Branstad, according to a new poll by Selzer and Co. for The Des Moines Register. Just 29 percent plan to vote for Bob Vander Plaats, and 8 percent plan to vote for Rod Roberts. The Des Moines Register poll surveyed 1,793 Iowans at least 18 years old, and the sub-sample of Republican primary voters included 501 people. (That included independents who said they planned to vote in the GOP primary; Iowa allows people to change their party registration on primary election day.) The poll was in the field from June 1 through June 3, and results for the likely Republican voters have a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percent.

Two other recent Iowa polls by Public Policy Polling and Research 2000 for KCCI have found Branstad comfortably ahead of Vander Plaats and Roberts but below 50 percent. In the 2002 Republican primary, Vander Plaats did much better than his final poll numbers, but he benefited that year from a highly negative campaign between Steve Sukup and Doug Gross.

This primary might have played out differently had Vander Plaats had more resources to make his case. About 34 percent of likely Republican primary voters weren’t sure whether they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Vander Plaats, and 60 percent said the same about Roberts. Branstad not only is much better known, he also scored highest on attributes like “best ideas for bringing new jobs to Iowa” and “best able to curb government spending” (which is laughable when you consider Branstad’s record on fiscal issues).

I will never understand why the Club for Growth and other national right-wing organizations decided not to get involved in the Iowa governor’s race. Given the way the national conservative movement pushed Marco Rubio against Florida Governor Charlie Crist, you’d think they would have some issues with Branstad (who received a “D” grade from the Cato Institute when he was governor).

Selzer’s poll for the Des Moines Register also asked likely Republican primary voters several questions about gay marriage. While 77 percent of them agreed that “Iowans should have a chance to vote on changing the constitution to specifically ban gay marriage,” I was surprised to see that 20 percent of likely Republican voters disagreed with that statement.

Meanwhile, only 50 percent of likely GOP primary voters agreed that “Iowans should vote to remove current Supreme Court justices from their office because of their decision on gay marriage.” An amazing (to me) 45 percent disagreed with that statement. Regarding the statement, “Some Iowans have overreacted to this issue, and having gay marriage in Iowa is just not that big a deal,” 35 percent of likely Republican primary voters agreed, while 62 percent disagreed.

Share any thoughts about the Des Moines Register’s poll in this thread.

It’s time for another Bleeding Heartland election prediction contest. No prizes will be awarded, but winners will get bragging rights. Can anyone dethrone American007, overall winner of our 2008 election contest?

Enter by answering the following questions. To qualify for the contest, your predictions must be posted as a comment in this thread by 7 am on Tuesday, June 8, 2010. This isn’t like The Price is Right; the winning answers will be closest to the final results, whether or not they were a little high or low.

1. How many votes will be cast in the Republican primary for Iowa governor? (Hint: about 199,000 Iowans voted in the hard-fought 2002 Republican gubernatorial primary.)

2. What percentages of the vote will Terry Branstad, Bob Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts receive in the Republican primary for governor?

3. What percentages of the vote will Roxanne Conlin, Bob Krause and Tom Fiegen receive in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate?

4. What percentages of the vote will Rob Gettemy, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Steve Rathje and Chris Reed receive in the Republican primary in Iowa’s second Congressional district? Remember, if you expect this nomination to be decided at a district convention, make sure your guess has the top vote-getter below 35 percent.

5. Who will be the top four candidates in the Republican primary in Iowa’s third Congressional district, and what percentages of the vote will they receive? Again, keep the top vote-getter below 35 percent if you expect this nomination to go to a district convention. Your possible answers are Jim Gibbons, Brad Zaun, Dave Funk, Mark Rees, Scott Batcher, Jason Welch and Pat Bertroche.

6. What percentages of the vote will Mike Denklau and Matt Campbell receive in the Democratic primary in Iowa’s fifth Congressional district?

7. What percentages of the vote will Matt Schultz, George Eichhorn and Chris Sanger receive in the Republican primary for secretary of state? (I covered that campaign in this post.)

8. What percentages of the vote will Dave Jamison and Jim Heavens receive in the Republican primary for state treasurer? (The Iowa Republican blog has been covering this race from time to time.)

9. What percentages of the vote will State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad and challenger Clair Rudison receive in the Democratic primary for Iowa House district 66? (Click here for background.)

10. What percentages of the vote will Tom Shaw, Stephen Richards and Alissa Wagner receive in the Republican primary for Iowa House district 8? (Click here and here for background. Keep in mind that although Wagner withdrew from the race and endorsed Shaw, her name will remain on the ballot.)

Don’t be afraid to make some wild guesses. You can’t win if you don’t play!

This is also an open thread, so share whatever’s on your mind.

Research 2000’s latest Iowa poll for KCCI-TV contains good news for supporters of marriage equality. The survey asked, “Now that more than a year has gone by since the Iowa Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, do you favor or oppose marriage rights for same-sex couples?” 53 percent respondents said they favor those rights, 41 percent opposed them and 6 percent were unsure.

I haven’t seen the full poll results, showing support for same-sex marriage rights among men, women, Democrats, Republicans and independents. I will update this post with a link to the cross-tabs when I find them. Bryan English of the Iowa Family Policy Center told KCCI he didn’t think the poll was representative of Iowans’ views, but several other statewide polls have shown that the majority of Iowans are not eager to overturn marriage equality. As time passes, public acceptance should increase if the experience of Vermont and Massachusetts are guides.

The KCCI poll also found that 62 percent of respondents support legalizing medical marijuana in Iowa, 33 percent oppose doing so and 5 percent are unsure.

Getting back to the same-sex marriage issue, I give huge credit to the Libertarian candidate for Iowa governor, Eric Cooper. On Thursday he made the case for tolerance while speaking to the Ames Conservative Breakfast Club.

Here’s my rough transcript of the first part of this clip:

You know who the Pilgrims were? The Pilgrims were a group of people in England, and everybody in England hated their guts. And you know what they did? They came to America to live here. And the reason–they came here because we were the land of the free. We started the land of the free. That is, even if everyone in surrounding society hates your guts, in America as long as you’re not hurting other people and their property, you can live the way that you want, as long as you’re being peaceful.

To me, that’s the most American story there is. If you’re a peaceful person who’s not hurting other people, you get to live your life according to your cultural traditions. OK, well, guess what? There are some homosexuals in America today, and to me, they’re the Pilgrims, ok? Surrounding society doesn’t like ’em very much, but you know what? What America is, is you get to live the way that you want to live. And if their cultural tradition is that they can get married, I think that’s America, to allow them to follow that cultural tradition. No, I don’t think that’s [unintelligible] surrounding society as a whole, and I think if we’re gonna restrict that, we’re not America anymore, we’re England, ok? And we’re better than England, we’re America.

Now people say, “Well shouldn’t we be allowed to vote on marriage and what marriage means in the state of Iowa?” Well, yeah, legally, there are mechanisms by which a sufficiently large supermajority can persecute any minority they want. Yes, legally, we could all vote to persecute the Pilgrims if we wanted to and yeah, legally, we could all vote to say, you know, gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry if we want to. But that’s not America anymore, ok?

Cooper’s a bit off on the history. The Pilgrims were far from laid-back and accepting of other people’s traditions. In fact, “New England Puritans, long viewed as a persecuted group in England, were the least tolerant of other faiths.” But I cut Cooper slack. He’s a neuroscientist, not a historian, and what he did took guts.

You’d expect a Libertarian addressing a Republican group to focus on likely areas of agreement: reducing taxes and the size of government. Instead of just preaching to the choir, Cooper challenged his audience to think about a charged issue differently. He had to know that most people at that breakfast club oppose what the Iowa Supreme Court did.

Post any thoughts on same-sex marriage in Iowa in this thread. The Des Moines Register reports that Iowa’s leading gay wedding planner may star in a television “docu-reality series” about his work. Beau Fodor created Gay Weddings With Panache soon after the Varnum v Brien decision was announced last year.

UPDATE: On Sunday the Des Moines Register published results from a Selzer and Co. Iowa poll of 501 likely Iowa Republican primary voters, which was in the field from June 1 through June 3. The survey included several questions about gay marriage. About 77 percent of likely GOP primary voters agreed that “Iowans should have a chance to vote on changing the constitution to specifically ban gay marriage,” but 20 percent disagreed with that statement. Meanwhile, only 50 percent of likely GOP primary voters agreed that “Iowans should vote to remove current Supreme Court justices from their office because of their decision on gay marriage.” About 45 percent disagreed with that statement. Regarding the statement, “Some Iowans have overreacted to this issue, and having gay marriage in Iowa is just not that big a deal,” 35 percent of likely Republican primary voters agreed, while 62 percent disagreed. I find those numbers encouraging.

State Representative Erik Helland was arrested early this morning and charged with operating while intoxicated and interference with official acts, KCCI-TV reported. After a driver in a different vehicle called 911 to report Helland’s erratic driving,

A trooper and Johnston police stopped the vehicle at Merle Hay Road at 12:47 a.m.

Officials said Helland submitted to a preliminary breath screening test, which indicated an alcohol concentration of .08 or more. At 2:21 a.m., he exercised his right to refuse chemical testing.

First-term Republican Helland represents Iowa House district 69, covering most of Johnston, Grimes, and much of rural northern Polk County. From the sound of this statement Helland released, he won’t be fighting the charge:

“I deeply regret the mistake I made to drink and drive. I apologize to my family, constituents, colleagues and all Iowans for the harmful and dangerous error that I made. I fully accept the consequences of my actions and am truly sorry. “

No Democrat filed to challenge Helland, so he is likely to ride out this scandal even if convicted of drunk driving. Democratic State Representative Kerry Burt was arrested on an OWI in early 2009. His political career might have survived if not for a separate incident that led to criminal charges, prompting Burt to retire from Iowa House district 21.

KCCI-TV in Des Moines released a new Iowa poll conducted by Research 2000 yesterday. I can’t find details about the sample or when it was in the field, but topline results were in this report. The numbers for the Republican gubernatorial primary and the Democratic U.S. Senate primary were similar to those found in a Public Policy Polling survey released on Tuesday. KCCI’s poll found that Terry Branstad has 44 percent support in the GOP primary, Bob Vander Plaats has 29 percent and Rod Roberts has 12 percent, with 15 percent undecided. Public Policy Polling had Branstad with 46 percent, Vander Plaats with 31 percent and Roberts with 13 percent.

In the Senate primary, KCCI’s poll shows Roxanne Conlin way ahead with 48 percent, Bob Krause with 13 percent, Tom Fiegen with 12 percent and 27 percent undecided. PPP had Conlin with 48 percent support among Democratic primary voters, to 13 percent for Krause and 8 percent for Fiegen.

In the general election matchup for governor, KCCI’s new poll has Branstad leading Governor Chet Culver, 51 percent to 42 percent, with 7 percent undecided. Those aren’t good numbers for Culver, but they’re slightly better than PPP’s poll showing Branstad ahead 52-37.

When the pollsters tested Conlin against Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, the results were shockingly different. KCCI’s new poll by Research 2000 has Grassley at 50 percent, Conlin at 42 percent and 8 percent undecided. Meanwhile, Public Policy Polling has Grassley leading Conlin 57-31 and concludes that Grassley is safe for re-election.

The KCCI poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent. PPP’s poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percent. One of these pollsters is way off on the Senate race. I have no idea which one, and I don’t know whether it has something to do with the sample or the weighting. It’s strange for two polls taken around the same time to show similar numbers in some races but hugely different numbers in one contest. PPP found that Conlin “is an unknown to 53% of voters in the state,” which sounded like a high number to me. I haven’t seen KCCI’s numbers on Conlin’s name recognition.

I will update this post with more details about the KCCI/Research 2000 poll when those become available.

If Sarah Palin runs for president in 2012, she will regret endorsing Terry Branstad yesterday in the Republican primary for governor.

First thoughts on how this will play out are after the jump.

Who is the Iowa Secretary of Agriculture?  The answer to that question is, and has always been:  whichever faithful servant of Big Agriculture was keeping the chair warm and keeping Monsanto,  Koch and Cargill happy, Democrat or Republican.  (Currently, it's a guy who loves chicken factories.)  An urban dweller, I didn't think that the Ag Secretary had anything to do with me. 

A few months ago, I met Francis Thicke, an organic dairy farmer who is running for Secretary of Agriculture, and he changed my mind about that.   I have begun to grasp how this official affects the food I eat, the quality of the air and rivers where I live, and waters far downstream from Iowa.  I have even begun to hope for change in the way we produce food and use energy in Iowa, where we often set the example for farming practices across the country.

  Francis Thicke (pronounced “tickee”) has an organic dairy farm near Fairfield, Iowa, a small community best known as the home of Maharishi University.   Francis and his wife, Susan, make milk, yogurt and cheese with the milk from his 80 cows, and sell all of it locally.  Although he grew up on a farm, Francis wanted to be a musician.  He studied music and philosophy in college, and plays a mean trumpet.  But eventually he got a doctorate in agronomy instead, worked at the USDA, then came back to Iowa to start a dairy farm. 

 Radiance Dairy is no ordinary farm.  Livestock and landscape nourish each other.  Everything the cows eat is grown on land they fertilize, and as Francis says, they enjoy their work.  He uses solar panels to power pumps for water , to electrify fences, and to heat water for his dairy processing plant.  A wind turbine is in the works.  His operation is so innovative that he attracts visitors who come to learn, from local schoolchildren to the World Bank, and he travels frequently to teach and give lectures.   He has received awards from the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, and the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club, which recognized him as a “Steward of the Land,” among other awards.  People who know him regard him as a national treasure.

more below the fold… 

Public Policy Polling’s new poll on the Iowa governor’s race has a lot of bad news for Democratic incumbent Chet Culver. The poll was in the field from May 25 to 27 and surveyed 1,277 Iowa voters, producing a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percent.

Former Governor Terry Branstad, the likely Republican nominee, leads Culver 52 percent to 37 percent. Bob Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts lead the governor by smaller margins, 43-38 and 40-38, respectively, but it’s bad for an incumbent to be below 40 percent against all challengers. Only 28 percent of PPP’s respondents approved of Culver’s performance, while 56 percent disapproved.

I don’t have much to add to PPP director Tom Jensen’s comments:

[Branstad] has a 49-33 advantage among independent voters, and wins 20% of the Democratic vote while losing only 7% of the Republicans to Culver. Branstad’s not overwhelmingly popular, with 42% of voters viewing him favorably to 37% with a negative opinion. But more important than the way voters view Branstad may be the way they see Culver, and the current Governor’s approval rating is only 28% with 56% of voters giving him bad marks. His approval with independents is 22% and with Republicans it’s 4%, and even among Democrats he stands only at 56%. […]

It’s a long way until November but for now Republicans are in pretty good shape in this race. Culver can’t get reelected with these approval numbers- he will somehow have to make voters change their minds about him.

You can download PPP’s polling memo (pdf file) here or read it at Iowa Independent.

To my knowledge, 28 percent is the lowest approval rating ever recorded for Culver by any pollster. Incumbents below 50 percent approval are usually considered vulnerable, and incumbents below 40 percent are highly vulnerable. If Culver’s approval really is 28 percent, calling this election an uphill battle would be an understatement.

Branstad needs to make this race a referendum on the incumbent, while Culver needs to make it a choice. Branstad’s record has yet to come under much scrutiny, and he keeps throwing stones from his glass house. Under Culver and the Democratic-controlled legislature, Iowa’s fiscal health has been strong during difficult times for state budgets across the country. In contrast, “Mastercard Governor” Branstad kept two sets of books and borrowed money to pay bills.

PPP’s numbers on the Branstad-Culver matchup are similar to what Republican pollster Rasmussen found a month earlier (though Culver’s approval rating wasn’t nearly as dismal in the Rasmussen poll). So much for the conspiracy theory about PPP being in cahoots with Iowa Democrats. Unfortunately, the recent Research 2000 poll for KCCI showing Branstad ahead of Culver 48-41, with Culver’s favorability in the mid-40s, looks like an outlier.

I keep waiting for the new Selzer and Co. Iowa poll for the Des Moines Register. The last one was in January, and most years Selzer conducts an Iowa poll in May.  

Any comments about the governor’s race are welcome in this thread.

Final note on polling: the Cedar Rapids Gazette’s Todd Dorman fired up the wayback machine and discovered that in the 2002 Republican primary, Vander Plaats significantly outperformed his final poll numbers. He’ll need some GOTV magic to overcome the 46-31 lead PPP found for Branstad in the latest survey. I doubt the one-two punch of James Dobson and Chuck Norris can get the job done for Vander Plaats.

Americans United for Life last evening called the Secret Liberal Listening Post (the number has been registered for decades as Republican for 3 previous families).

AUL has been a long and powerful mover in the anti-abortion opposition.  Just recently, they hired a new CEO, Charmaine Yoest, formerly of the Family Research Council and an advisor to Huckabee's 2008 campaign.

The Republican primary campaign for Iowa secretary of state has lacked the drama and publicity of the governor’s race, but it is turning into a test of strength between a “fresh face” and a veteran of Iowa Republican politics.

The nominee challenging our outstanding Secretary of State Michael Mauro will be either Council Bluffs City Council member Matt Schultz or former State Representative George Eichhorn (“say I-Corn”).

A third Republican qualified for the ballot in this race, but I’m focusing on Eichhorn and Schultz because Chris Sanger is not a serious contender. He has no campaign staff and has raised only about $400, all at bake sales in Stuart, where the candidate and his wife own a bakery. The only newsworthy moment in Sanger’s campaign was his involvement in a meet and greet organized by a guy who thinks killing abortion providers is justifiable homicide. In fairness to Sanger, though, he may have a place in the record books for choosing the longest campaign committee name in Iowa history: Elect Chris Sanger, He Will Vote The Way People Want. Someone should have told him the secretary of state isn’t a legislator who votes on policies.

But I digress. Links and commentary about Schultz and Eichhorn are after the jump.  

With only five days left before the Iowa primaries on June 8, many candidates have a busy weekend ahead. Event details are after the jump. Please post a comment or send an e-mail to desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com if you want to suggest an event for this calendar. Iowa Democratic candidates, please add me to your list for press announcements so that I can include your public appearances and fundraisers on these calendars. Also, let me know where you are having your election night parties if you would like me to add them to this post.

Although most of the competitive primaries this year are on the Republican side, please remind your friends and family to vote in the June 8 election. Democrats across the state have a choice to make in the U.S. Senate race between Roxanne Conlin, Tom Fiegen and Bob Krause. Democrats in 32 counties (the fifth Congressional district) will select either Matt Campbell or Mike Denklau to face Representative Steve “10 Worst” King. A few state legislative districts have multiple Democrats running too. County auditors’ offices are open for early voting today, tomorrow, Saturday and Monday.

Stay tuned for a Bleeding Heartland primary election prediction contest. I’ll post more details soon. As usual, no prizes will be awarded, but the winner gets bragging rights.

Most of our Democratic incumbents and challengers are out knocking on doors every weekend and often during the week. Please consider getting involved in an Iowa House or Senate race near you. Candidates for the state legislature can always use volunteer help, and summer parades and county fairs are not far off.

Oil from BP’s blown-out Deepwater Horizon well continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico and will do so until August at the earliest. In response, the Obama administration extended a moratorium on deepwater drilling for six months last week. However, the president also “quietly allowed a three-week-old ban on drilling in shallow water to expire” last week (hat tip Open Left). As a result,

Federal regulators approved Wednesday the first new Gulf of Mexico oil well since President Barack Obama lifted a brief ban on drilling in shallow water, even while deepwater projects remain frozen after the massive BP spill.

The Minerals Management Service granted a new drilling permit sought by Bandon Oil and Gas for a site about 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana and 115 feet below the ocean’s surface. It’s south of Rockefeller State Wildlife Refuge and Game Preserve, far to the west of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that triggered the BP spill.

Chris Bowers put it mildly when he described the Obama administration’s action here as “difficult to fathom.” The president gave a speech on the economy today and talked about investing in alternative energy, but like all my parenting books say, actions speak louder than words. The greatest environmental disaster in U.S. history is unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico, and BP doesn’t know how to stop it, but it’s business as usual at the Minerals Management Service. Nor is today’s permit approval an isolated case:

In the days since President Obama announced a moratorium on permits for drilling new offshore oil wells and a halt to a controversial type of environmental waiver that was given to the Deepwater Horizon rig, at least seven new permits for various types of drilling and five environmental waivers have been granted, according to records.

The records also indicate that since the April 20 explosion on the rig, federal regulators have granted at least 19 environmental waivers for gulf drilling projects and at least 17 drilling permits, most of which were for types of work like that on the Deepwater Horizon shortly before it exploded, pouring a ceaseless current of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Words fail me, so you’ll have to share your thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: In 1979 it took nine months to stop oil gushing from a shallow well in the Gulf of Mexico.

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…