Ed Campbell, a legendary figure in the Iowa Democratic Party, died last Thursday and was fondly remembered today during his funeral at St. Anthony’s Catholic Church in Des Moines. I hadn’t realized until I read the obituary in the Des Moines Register that Campbell had been a Republican before going to work for Governor Harold Hughes. In that job, he helped “oversee the establishment of the community colleges” in Iowa. Campbell later worked in Hughes’ Senate office, and managed John Culver’s successful U.S. Senate campaign in 1974. He chaired the Iowa Democratic Party during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Though he never held elective office, he advised many political candidates and took immense pride in his wife Bonnie’s election as Iowa attorney general in 1990. He played a central role in that campaign and in her bid for governor four years later.

Click here to read reflections from Kay Henderson of Radio Iowa, as well as statements released by the Iowa Democratic Party, Governor Chet Culver, Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge, Senator Tom Harkin, and former President Bill Clinton. The Des Moines Register noted Campbell’s influence over “a class of political professionals” in Iowa, including Teresa Vilmain, John Cacciatore and John Frew, who told the Register, “He taught a whole generation of us how to count, that every minute of every day in a campaign counts.”

At the bottom of this Radio Iowa story you can listen to audio clips of eulogies delivered by Monsignor Frank Chiodo, Campbell’s sister Christine Lantis, Iowa First Lady Mari Culver, longtime friends Dan Miller and Ned Chiodo, and President Bill Clinton. Kay Henderson posted a partial transcript of Clinton’s eulogy as well. Many of the speakers shared funny stories about Campbell. Clinton spoke about how fortunate he and Hillary Clinton had been to receive advice and support from Campbell over the years. The former president got some of the biggest laughs of the service during this part of his eulogy:

I know Ed Campbell had a gentle, good, kind side, but he was brilliant at hiding it. I mean, the first time I ever met this guy he leans into me with this big bald head and these sharp features and these piercing eyes.  I actually thought I had run into somebody out of Star Wars. I thought I was being interviewed to see whether I was suitable to go on the next inter-galactic conquest mission.

Ned Chiodo told several stories about Campbell’s kindness and generosity to people in need. He also reminded the audience, “Every single one of you have an Edward story and they’re terrific, but I want to assure you Edward had a story about every one of you. And I took copious notes.”

I didn’t know Campbell well but was fortunate to see him in action while I volunteered for Bonnie Campbell’s gubernatorial campaign in 1994. He was a great story-teller, and I hope he wrote down or recorded his political memories. I wish I could remember the details of his story about attending the funeral of Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito. Somehow Vice President Walter Mondale, who was representing the U.S. at that event, included Campbell in the American delegation. During the procession Campbell brought up the rear of the U.S. group, which meant he was walking immediately in front of the Soviet delegation led by General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev.

Although complications from cancer eventually killed Campbell, he lived far longer than expected after his lung cancer diagnosis in 1983. His family’s wishes are that in lieu of flowers, donations in his memory may be given to the American Cancer Society or the Iowa Democratic Party.

Bleeding Heartland readers, please share your own memories of Ed Campbell in this thread.

With the June 8 primary just four weeks away, Steve Rathje of Cedar Rapids is the first of the four Republican candidates in Iowa’s second Congressional district to start running television ads.

Rough transcript by me:

Rathje speaks to the camera: Congress and the president are no doubt lost as to how they’re going to compete with China. Hello folks, I’m Steve Rathje, and for more than 20 years, I’ve been working with companies all across the U.S. in an effort to eliminate waste, cut spending, and bring jobs back home to America.

It’s time to quit sending our jobs overseas and expect foreign countries to buy our debt due to our out-of-control spending. I approved this message because it’s time to compete, not retreat.

Male voice-over: Real-world experience. Steve Rathje Congress.

This strikes me as a very solid introductory ad, highlighting Rathje’s experience as CEO of a company that “find[s] people in Iowa who could make goods quicker, faster, better and cheaper than the foreign competitors.”

According to The Iowa Republican, Rathje is paying about $5,900 to run this commercial on Fox News and KCRG in Cedar Rapids for the week. He probably can afford to stay up on tv until the June 8 primary. At the end of the first quarter, Rathje’s campaign had $55,586 cash on hand, trailing Mariannette Miller-Meeks ($72,702) and political newcomer Rob Gettemy ($120,815 including a $100,000 loan from the candidate). I’m surprised Rathje was able to raise nearly as much money as Miller-Meeks, the 2008 GOP nominee against Representative Dave Loebsack. Gettemy probably has more potential for out-of-district donations now that the National Republican Congressional Committee has put him “on the radar.”

Loebsack’s Republican challengers don’t differ much on the issues. If three of them can afford paid media for the final month of the campaign, that will raise the chances for the nomination to be decided at a district convention. The fourth Republican candidate, Chris Reed, has little money to spend before June 8. He needs to hope that his far-right endorsers and team of volunteers are able to deliver a surprising number of grassroots votes.

Numerous media reported tonight that Monday morning, President Barack Obama will nominate his solicitor general, Elana Kagan, to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Above the Law blog saw several “clues” over the last few days that the president would pick Kagan.

I always expected Obama to choose corporate-friendly pro-choice moderate judges like President Bill Clinton’s appointees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Instead, Obama is choosing a corporate-friendly pro-choice “blank slate.” Kagan is a lot less qualified than Sonia Sotomayor, whom Obama named to the high court last year. She probably will turn out to be more conservative than Justice John Paul Stevens, whom she will replace if confirmed.

Constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald laid out a devastating case against Kagan last month, and he supplemented that on Sunday with more links and commentary.

As far as I can tell, Obama gets two things out of this nomination: a chance to show off how “moderate” he is by enraging liberals, and a Supreme Court justice who will support any expansion of executive power begun under President George W. Bush and continued during the current administration.

If tonight’s reports are true, Obama is on the verge of making one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency. We may all pay for that decades into the future.

UPDATE: To be clear, I’m not advocating a progressive fight against confirming Kagan. That would be pointless and doomed to fail. I wish the president had named someone who would be a counter-weight to the four right-wing ideologues on the court, but not surprisingly, he chose a different course. I guess we’ll all have to hope that Lawrence Lessig is right about Kagan. Incidentally, I didn’t find Walter Dellinger’s case for her convincing; Greenwald decimated that piece here.

Meanwhile, we can count on conservatives to make idiotic arguments against Kagan. Media Matters previews and rebuts 15 “myths” about her nomination we’re likely to hear in the coming weeks.

SECOND UPDATE: Right on cue, the conservative National Review Online blog attacks Kagan’s “remoteness” from the average American because she did not learn to drive until her late 20s.

THIRD UPDATE: Democratic Senate candidate Tom Fiegen released the following statement regarding Kagan’s nomination:

“The President’s nomination of Ms. Kagan is an opportunity for our senior senator Chuck Grassley to either objectively advise and consent to the nomination or to bow to right wing forces in his party which took down Utah U.S. Senator Bob Bennett. Iowans will be watching to see whether Senator Grassley represents us or the most extreme wing of his own party.”

My money’s on “most extreme wing of his own party.” But at least this time Grassley will be able to remember why he voted against the president’s nominee.

FOURTH UPDATE: Oops, I forgot to post Grassley’s statement:

“A lifetime appointment requires a thorough vetting and I expect Elena Kagan to receive fair, respectful and deliberative consideration.  The Constitution gives the Senate a tremendous responsibility to carefully review the President’s nominees to the Supreme Court.   The Judiciary Committee must take time to ensure that the nominee will be true to the Constitution and apply the law, not personal politics, feelings or preferences.  With no judicial experience, it becomes even more important that we ask thorough questions to determine that Ms. Kagan truly understands the constitutional role of a Supreme Court justice.”

Senator Tom Harkin released this statement:

“Elena Kagan is extremely qualified.  She has the intellect and experience necessary to serve on our nation’s highest Court and her stellar legal credentials have been recognized by liberal and conservative lawyers alike.  She clerked for two judges for whom I have enormous respect – Judge Abner Mikva and Justice Thurgood Marshall.  I am also encouraged that in this nomination, the President selected a candidate from outside of the Judiciary.  Elena Kagan is recognized as one of the leading legal educators in our country.  

“I am confident that, if confirmed, she will be an important voice on our Court for the rule of law and constitutional rights and values.  She will ensure equality and give proper effect to our most important statutes, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and Civil Rights Act, so our most vulnerable citizens receive the fullest protections of the law.

“Elena Kagan’s nomination comes after a series of firsts in her career – first female Dean of Harvard Law School and first female Solicitor General – setting the stage for what may be only the fourth woman to serve on the Court in our history.”

This thread is for anything on your mind this weekend.

I posted Mother’s Day links on this holiday in 2008 and 2009. For a change of pace this year, I decided to list the Democratic mothers who are currently running for office in Iowa. Please let me know if I’ve inadvertently left anyone out.

Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge

Susan Bangert (candidate in House district 8)

State Representative Sharon Steckman (House district 13)

State Representative Doris Kelley (House district 20)

State Representative Deborah Berry (House district 22)

Mary Wolfe (candidate in House district 26)

State Representative Kirsten Running-Marquardt (House district 33)

State Representative Geri Huser (House district 42)

State Representative Beth Wessel-Kroeschell (House district 45)

State Representative Lisa Heddens (House district 46)

State Representative Helen Miller (House district 49)

Danuta Hutchins (candidate in House district 52)

State Representative Janet Petersen (House district 64)

Ruth Ann Gaines (candidate in House district 65)

Deb Ballalatak (candidate in House district 72)

State Representative Mary Mascher (House district 77)

State Representative Vicki Lensing (House district 78)

State Representative Phyllis Thede (House district 81)

Sheri Carnahan (candidate in House district 84)

State Representative Cindy Winckler (House district 86)

State Representative Mary Gaskill (House district 93)

State Senator Amanda Ragan (Senate district 7)

State Senator Staci Appel (Senate district 37)

State Senator Becky Schmitz (Senate district 45)

Roxanne Conlin (candidate for U.S. Senate)

Cross-posted at my blog: http://blog.thegolddome.com

Note to the media: There is an election in less than a month, but no one has deemed to do a poll about it yet.

The main reason is because most people think like Doug Gross and Jerry Crawford that Terry Branstad will be the nominee. Now Doug Gross has a vested interest, and Jerry Crawford probably hasn't been paying attention as Paddy O'Prado raced to third in the Derby and is looking to race in the Preakness — so let me tell them the Republican Primary for Governor is far from over. The other reason is money it can cost as much as twice as much to poll a primary universe as a general election universe because you run into so many people that aren't voting in the primary.

Either way, while Terry Branstad just might win on June 8, the concept that it is pre-ordained is not reporting or punditry. It is just lazy. But some are starting to get it: O. Kay Henderson mentions the oversight in a post yesterday.

So, for everyone but Kay, including the editors of the DMR, the staff at KCCI, and any other media outlet that might deem to poll this race, here are just six reason the CW that Branstad has this locked up is probably wrong:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. economy had a net gain of 290,000 jobs during the month of April, the largest monthly increase since March 2006. The number includes 66,000 temporary workers hired to help conduct the U.S. census. Job numbers for February and March were also revised upwards, Steve Benen notes: “While previous estimates showed 14,000 job losses in February, the revised total was a gain of 39,000. Likewise, March was revised from 162,000 to 230,000.”

On the down side, the unemployment rate inched up from 9.7 percent to 9.9 percent because more people are looking for work again. Many economists believe it will take four or five years to bring the unemployment rate back down to the level seen before the last economic recession.

Still, it’s encouraging to see job growth instead of job losses. Down With Tyranny has more analysis of the employment figures as well as the absurdly negative spin some Republicans are putting on the news.

I haven’t seen Iowa-specific employment numbers for April, but earlier this week, officials announced some encouraging numbers:

Iowa’s index of leading economic indicators posted its largest monthly increase in March, a clear signal that Iowa’s is recovering from recession with positive signs starting to appear in the employment sector, officials said Monday. […]

The March index rose to 98.2 compared to 97.2 in February – where 100 represents Iowa economic activity in 1999. That’s a full point gain that marked the largest single increase in the index’s 11-year history and was the sixth straight monthly increase among Iowa’s leading indicators, Harris said. The Iowa index hit a peak of 107.45 in March 2008. The low reading was 94.55 last September.

On the negative side, non-farm employment fell by 0.08 percent for the month and continued a string of 17th consecutive monthly declines, [Iowa Department of Revenue senior fiscal analyst Amy] Harris noted. However, on a seasonally adjusted basis, the state has gained 15,400 jobs over the past three months – which was more than a fourth of the jobs lost in Iowa during the recession.

“On a seasonal basis, we’ve been hiring more than we would expect, but year over year it’s still not pushed us above where we were a year ago,” she noted. The seasonal gain “is a very good sign and the indicators are suggesting that we should start seeing some gains on a non-seasonally adjusted basis in the next few months.”

Average weekly unemployment claims gradually are improving and average weekly manufacturing hours rose to 41 in March, which was up from 39.6 in February and 38.6 reported in March 2009 but still down slightly compared to the historical March average from 1996 to 2008, she said.

Here’s hoping the summer holds more good job news in store. We’re having some roof repairs done because of damage caused by an ice dam, and the contractors tell me they’ve been very busy this spring after a long and slow winter.

Democratic Senate candidate Roxanne Conlin and Governor Chet Culver markedly improved their position in the latest statewide poll by Research 2000 for KCCI-TV. The pollster surveyed 600 likely Iowa voters between May 3 and May 5, producing a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

In the Senate race, five-term incumbent Republican Chuck Grassley leads Conlin 49 percent to 40 percent. The last time Research 2000 polled this race for KCCI in mid-February, Grassley led Conlin 56-35. The firm has not polled Grassley against either of the other Democratic Senate candidates, Tom Fiegen and Bob Krause.

To my knowledge, Grassley has never been below 50 percent in a public poll before. The favorability numbers suggest that support for Conlin has more room to grow, because 20 percent of respondents didn’t know enough about her to have an opinion. Only 5 percent of respondents said the same about Grassley. Michael O’Brien of The Hill declared Conlin “within striking distance” of Grassley.

In the governor’s race, the new poll found former Governor Terry Branstad leading Culver 48 percent to 41 percent. Normally those numbers wouldn’t look good for an incumbent, but in Research 2000’s February poll for KCCI, Branstad’s lead was twice as large (54-38). DavidNYC of Swing State Project quipped that Culver’s numbers no longer resemble those of the 1962 New York Mets but look more like those of the 1963 Mets. Culver led Bob Vander Plaats 44 percent to 40 percent and Rod Roberts by 46 percent to 36 percent.

I frankly expected worse numbers in this poll. The three Republican candidates have been criss-crossing the state bashing Culver full-time for months now. Branstad, Vander Plaats and Roberts have held two debates and countless campaign events and media interviews in towns large and small. Furthermore, Branstad has been running paid television advertising statewide for a full month. Culver’s campaign manager Donn Stanley emphasized that angle in his comment on the poll: “What is particularly surprising is that this poll comes out after weeks of Branstad’s campaign airing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of television ads across Iowa. He is the only candidate in the race that is running television ads. This poll suggests those ads have not be resonating with Iowa voters.”

Branstad’s campaign spokesman Tim Albrecht told KCCI, “Polls will go up and down, but what’s unchanged is that Governor Branstad is the Republican who can beat Chet Culver in November.”

One problem with the poll is the partisan makeup of the sample: 33 percent Democrats, 29 percent Republicans and 38 percent Independents. That’s quite different from the proportion of Iowans who cast votes in the 2006 general election (pdf file available here): 37 percent were Democrats, 37 percent were Republicans, and 26 percent independents. I would be very surprised if the voter universe this November had a plurality of no-party voters.

Both Grassley and Branstad led comfortably among no-party voters in the new KCCI poll, so if that poll over-sampled independents, the Republican leads in the Senate and governor’s race might be even smaller than they appear. On the other hand, there’s no guarantee that this November’s voter universe will contain more Democrats than Republicans, as this poll assumes. Iowa Democrats still have a voter registration advantage of about 100,000 over the GOP, but Republicans may benefit from an “enthusiasm gap.”

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers?

UPDATE: Secretary of State Michael Mauro released the latest Iowa voter registration numbers today: 602,768 Republicans, 711,106 Democrats, and 774,005 no-party voters. The total number of registered voters is 2,089,561. Approximately 1,050,000 Iowans voted in the 2006 general election.

I lived in the UK during the 1992 and 2002 elections, and got most of my news from the BBC World Service during the 1997 election, so I am feeling a lot of British nostalgia today. To mark the occasion, I went to the Polk County Auditor’s office and voted early for the June 8 Democratic primary.

For live UK election coverage, try the BBC, The Guardian or The Independent.

The exit poll looks grim for Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The BBC projects Conservatives (Tories) to be just short of a majority, but Fivethirtyeight.com projects that Conservatives will get the number of seats they need. Note: in theory, a British party needs 326 seats for a majority, but in reality the number is a bit smaller. The Irish separatist party Sinn Fein usually wins a few districts in Northern Ireland, but they refuse to take their seats in the Parliament, which lowers the total number of seats filled.

I was hoping for a hung parliament with significant gains for the Liberal Democrats, but it appears that Nick Clegg’s party peaked a couple of weeks too soon. I think it was a mistake for him to say that he would try first to form a government with the Conservatives. Labour have been saying that a vote for Clegg is a vote for the Tory David Cameron as prime minister, and I suspect that caused a small swing from the Liberal Democrats back to Labour.

This thread is for anything on your mind, including your take on the British election.

UPDATE: Many analysts predicted a hung British parliament, but I don’t think anyone expected the outcome we have, in which all three major parties have reason to be very disappointed.

The Liberal Democrats seemed to be gaining so much ground in the campaign, but their popular vote share went up only 1 percent and they suffered a net loss of seats.

Labour suffered its lowest share of the vote in a long time and would be short of a majority even in coalition with LibDems.

The Conservatives failed to win an outright majority despite Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s unpopularity. In a minority government scenario, the Tories will have to implement some very unpopular economic/budget policies and then face the voters again in a year or two. I am loving listening to the BBC tv livestream.

Let's tell Congress it’s time to get serious about ending our fossil fuel addiction and act now to pass an energy bill that will set the US on a path to a clean energy future.

Progress on a federal climate and clean energy bill is again being bogged down in political maneuvering.  On Monday, April 26, instead of the expected and long-awaited release of the bipartisan climate and clean energy bill, advocates of clean energy were greeted with news that Senator Graham, the Republican co-author of the bill, might pull his support from the legislation if immigration reform is given priority over climate on this year's Senate calendar. There is still hope that the three Senators who drafted the legislation will figure out a way to move forward—which they did in one sense by sending their proposed legislation to the Environmental Protection Agency last week for an economic impact analysis. But time is running out.

More after the jump

During Saturday’s Republican gubernatorial debate I was struck by how eager all three candidates were to pander on the immigration issue. For example, in response to a question by Iowa Public Radio journalist Jeneane Beck, all the Republicans said they would deny in-state tuition at Iowa universities to the children of illegal immigrants.

That’s easier said than done, since many children of undocumented immigrants were born in the U.S. and are consequently U.S. citizens. For that reason, former Governor Terry Branstad has backpedaled a bit since the debate. Meeting with the Des Moines Register editorial board on Tuesday morning, Branstad “said he would have to consider the constitutionality” of denying in-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants who were born in this country. Later the same day, Branstad’s campaign spokesman Tim Albrecht told the Des Moines Register, “If they are born here, they are legal residents. If they are, they should be afforded every opportunity as every legal resident of the state.”

Branstad’s leading Republican rival, Bob Vander Plaats, talked a good game about the “rule of law” during Saturday’s debate but insists that he would deny children of illegal immigrants in-state tuition, even if they were born here. I expect Vander Plaats supporters to make a big deal out of Branstad’s “flip-flop” on the issue, even though Branstad’s new stance is correct from a legal standpoint. The Register’s Tom Beaumont reported that the third Republican running for governor, Rod Roberts, “stopped short of saying U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants should not qualify” for in-state tuition.

Meanwhile, Vander Plaats remains the only candidate in the Republican field to advocate an Arizona-style crackdown on undocumented immigrants for Iowa. I oppose Arizona’s new law on principle, because it is un-American to give the police power to put you in jail if you’re not immediately able to “show your papers.” Branstad and Roberts have declined to advocate copying Arizona for more pragmatic reasons, such as the cost of implementation. Polk County Sheriff Bill McCarthy put in his two cents on that angle yesterday:

“It’s all well and good to demagogue the issue, but there’s a reality to it,” McCarthy said during the elected official discussion segment of this morning’s Board of Supervisors workshop.

If illegal immigrants awaiting deportation were detained at the Polk County Jail at a cost of $95 per day without adequate support from the federal government, it could cost millions of dollars, McCarthy said. […]

The current jail system will not work if Iowa adopts a law similar to the one in Arizona, McCarthy said later in an interview with The Des Moines Register.

“The bottom line is that we’re dealing with human beings,” he said. “And I know they shouldn’t be here and I know they entered the country illegally. But if they’re here, they’re people and I think we have to deal with them in a humane way, particularly when there are children involved.”

The immigration issue provides a convenient crutch to Republican candidates, but the favored right-wing approach would be extremely costly, not to mention impractical. While we’re on the subject, I’d like to hear third district Congressional candidate Brad Zaun explain how he would “put [all the illegal immigrants in Iowa] on a bus and send them wherever they came from.”

Any thoughts on immigration policy are welcome in this thread. How long do you think Republican candidates will get away with massively exaggerating the amount of money Iowa could save by cutting services to undocumented immigrants?

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller announced yesterday that he is asking the State Executive Council to appoint a special prosecutor to look into allegations that three backers of a new casino in Fort Dodge made illegal contributions to Governor Chet Culver’s re-election campaign. Miller is recommending Lawrence Scalise, who is both a former attorney general and a former chairman of the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission.

“This was not an easy decision,” Miller said [in a prepared statement]. “My office has rarely withdrawn from a case in this manner. However, I believe the need for public confidence in the criminal justice process outweighs any other consideration.”

Miller did the right thing. A longtime aide in the Attorney General’s Office, Donn Stanley, has just taken over as campaign manager for Governor Culver. Although no one from the Culver campaign appears to be a target in the criminal investigation, there is clear potential for a conflict of interest. Republicans would have screamed about a cover-up if an investigator from Miller’s office found no wrongdoing by the governor’s campaign. Brenna Findley, the Republican candidate for attorney general, has been calling on Miller to step back from the investigation.

The three Fort Dodge residents whose donations have been questioned say their contributions to Culver’s campaign came from personal funds, and a spokeswoman for the company that would manage a new casino in Fort Dodge has denied that the company instructed its local consultants to give to Culver’s campaign.

On Tuesday the Racing and Gaming Commission held a lengthy hearing about four applications for new Iowa casinos. Culver has publicly supported new casinos for a long time and sent commissioners a letter in March urging them to approve all four applications. A decision is expected on May 13. My hunch is that only the casino proposed for Lyon County in far northwest Iowa will be approved, because it is unlikely to draw business away from any of Iowa’s existing casinos. The nearest population center is Sioux Falls, South Dakota.  

Terry Branstad’s campaign launched its third television ad today, about a month after his first commercials started running statewide in Iowa. The new commercial depicts Branstad as “the real conservative change we needed then… and now.”

Here’s the ad script:

The farm crisis … Budget deficits… Skyrocketing unemployment…

That’s what Terry Branstad faced when he was elected governor.

But this Winnebago County farm kid put his rural values right to work, recruiting thousands of jobs, cutting out half the state agencies and taxes $124 million – leaving us record employment, and a $900 million surplus.

Terry Branstad is the real conservative change we needed then… and NOW.

Time for a reality check.

Branstad was first elected governor near the bottom of one economic cycle (at that time the most severe recession since World War II) and was fortunate to retire near the peak of the Clinton boom years. However, job gains during Branstad’s tenure as governor did not fulfill promises he made during his campaigns.

Iowa reorganized state government in 1985, eliminating some agencies and merging others into larger departments. On the other hand, total state government employment increased from 53,342 in 1983 to 61,400 in 1999. Total receipts in the state’s general fund increased from $1.899 billion in 1983 to $4.881 billion in 1999. That 166 percent increase was more than the rate of inflation during the same period, and Iowa’s population was no larger when Branstad retired than it was when he was first elected.

The huge growth in the general fund budget would not have been possible without various tax increases Branstad signed into law. Increased revenue from two sales tax hikes dwarfed the $124 million in tax cuts highlighted in Branstad’s new commercial. Those cuts came primarily from reducing income and estate taxes, delivering most of the benefits to wealthier Iowa families. Unfortunately, Branstad’s sales tax increases disproportionately hit lower-income families, who spend a greater share of their money on essentials.

Branstad was far from reluctant to raise taxes. He asked the state legislature to increase the sales tax in his very first budget address, within days of being inaugurated in 1983.

I expect Branstad to win the Republican primary on June 8 despite his accountability problem. Bob Vander Plaats is a strong speaker but doesn’t have the financial resources to publicize his case against the former governor. Rod Roberts isn’t trying to make a case against Branstad, as far as I can tell. His function in the campaign seems to be to prevent Vander Plaats from consolidating the conservative vote in the primary.

However, during the general election campaign, Branstad will face an opponent with the resources to compare his record with his rhetoric. I wonder how many conservative Republicans will either stay home in November or check the Libertarian box in the governor’s race.

UPDATE: Kathie Obradovich says the $124 million figure “is the campaign’s calculation of the net result of all the tax changes enacted under Branstad – an overall reduction of $124 million, in 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars.” I would like to see a calculation of all the Branstad-era sales and gas tax increases in 2008 dollars. Hint: it would work out to a lot more than $124 million.

SECOND UPDATE: Branstad “had an elective heart procedure” today to put a stent in a partially blocked artery. I hope he feels better soon. His campaign released a statement from his doctor saying, “Governor Branstad should be able to resume his normal campaign schedule within the next few days and should quickly return to his normal lifestyle without limitations. He should be fully capable of performing the activities of a candidate and a Governor.”  

Jim Gibbons, a former NCAA champion wrestler and coach, included a heavy dose of wrestling imagery in his first television ad, which goes up in central Iowa today:

Rough transcript and some analysis are after the jump.

Last week I chose not to post Pat Bertroche’s disgusting comments about inserting michochips in illegal immigrants, because they struck me as a bid to gain attention for an irrevelant Congressional campaign. Bertroche himself said “you have to be radical to get news press.” His comment drew coverage not only in Iowa, but on national blogs like Talking Points Memo and on cable news networks, including Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show.  

Unfortunately, pandering to voters on immigration isn’t just for sideshows like Bertroche, who will be lucky to get 5 percent of the vote in the third Congressional district GOP primary. During the Republican gubernatorial debate on May 1, all three candidates made false and misleading claims about illegal immigration.  

A new Rasmussen poll finds Senator Chuck Grassley’s lead shrinking against Roxanne Conlin and Terry Branstad still over 50 percent against Governor Chet Culver. Rasmussen surveyed 500 Iowa likely voters on April 29, producing a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percent.

In the Senate race (survey questions and toplines here), Rasmussen found Grassley ahead of Conlin 53 percent to 40 percent. Grassley led Conlin 55-36 in Rasmussen’s previous Iowa poll, taken in mid-March. Rasmussen’s summary notes that Grassley “now leads Conlin by only five points among women.”

Grassley leads Democrat Bob Krause by 57 percent to 31 percent, the same as in Rasmussen’s March poll. He leads Tom Fiegen by 57 percent to 30 percent, a slightly smaller margin than his 57-28 lead in March.

This race is still Grassley’s to lose; Rasmussen finds 63 percent of respondents have a very or somewhat favorable opinion of the incumbent, while only 34 percent have a very or somewhat unfavorable opinion. The corresponding numbers for Conlin are 44 favorable/30 unfavorable.

However, a few stumbles by Grassley could make this race highly competitive in a hurry. At the very least Conlin is going to make it a lot closer than any other Democrat has against Grassley in the last 25 years.

I expect Conlin to have little trouble winning the Democratic primary on June 8. Not only is she the best-known candidate, she out-raised Grassley in the first quarter and had about $1 million cash on hand as of March 31. According to FEC reports, Krause had $352 and Fiegen had $582 on hand at the end of the first quarter. The Des Moines Register recently profiled Conlin, Fiegen and Krause.

Rasmussen’s numbers on the governor’s race continue to point to a tough road ahead for Culver. He trails Branstad 53 percent to 38 percent, little changed from Branstad’s 52-36 lead in Rasmussen’s March poll. Bob Vander Plaats leads Culver 45-41 in the new poll, up from a 42-40 lead in the March poll. Culver is barely ahead of Rod Roberts in the new poll, 43-41, little changed from the 40-38 lead Culver had against Roberts in the previous poll.

It’s not encouraging for an incumbent to be stuck around 40 percent against all challengers. Culver needs to bring up his own numbers and get out there to tell voters about his administration’s successes. For a preview of the case Culver will make with Iowa voters, watch his appearance on Chuck Todd’s MSNBC program last week.

Assuming Branstad will be the Republican nominee, Culver’s campaign will have to take him on aggressively. The race is bound to tighten up, but as long as Branstad is polling above 50 percent the odds are against Culver. Perhaps the governor can needle Branstad and provoke the same kind of response Vander Plaats got during the second Republican debate.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers?

UPDATE: At Daily Kos, Steve Singiser comments, “is it possible that one of the most invulnerable Senators in recent American history is really within striking range. Looking at the Rasmussen poll in Iowa, it appears so.”

Everyone who moderates a debate this year could learn from the journalists who guided the May 1 Iowa Republican gubernatorial candidates’ debate: Todd Dorman of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Paul Yeager of Iowa Public Television, and Jeneane Beck of Iowa Public Radio. Too many journalists ask long-winded questions that are easy to evade, or ask about hot topics of no lasting importance, or ask about policies outside the scope of the office the candidates are seeking.

In contrast, almost every question the panelists asked during Saturday’s debate was direct and addressed an issue the next governor of Iowa will face. Here are a few examples:

“Can you name one service government provides today that it should stop providing in the interest of saving the budget?”

“If elected, will you continue to support the Iowa Values Fund, the business grant and loan program created during the Vilsack administration, and also the renewable energy grant program established by Governor Culver known as the Iowa Power Fund?”

“Is there a role that government should play in limiting premium increases by Iowa insurance companies?”

“Do you believe that obesity is a problem that should be addressed through government action such as limiting unhealthy ingredients in food?”

Mind you, asking a direct, unambiguous question doesn’t guarantee that you’ll get a straight answer from a politician. Look what happened when Dorman asked the Republicans, “Can you identify one tangible way Iowa has been harmed during a full year of legal same-sex marriage?”

I just watched most of the second debate featuring the three Republicans running for governor: Terry Branstad, Rod Roberts and Bob Vander Plaats. I’ll post a link to the debate transcript when it’s available, and more detailed reactions tomorrow or Monday, but here are some initial thoughts. (UPDATE: Here is the transcript.)

The journalists asked better questions in this debate than in the first Republican gubernatorial debate in Sioux City. However, the format didn’t leave room for follow-up questions, which allowed the candidates to get away with some whoppers. Vander Plaats and Roberts are still claiming we could save huge money by denying services to undocumented immigrants, but that’s simply not true.

All the Republicans want to starve state government by cutting corporate taxes, but where are the spending cuts? Branstad has talked about shrinking state government by 15 percent, but when pressed for specific programs he would cut, he had little to say besides not providing funding for Planned Parenthood, reducing administrative overhead for the Area Education Agencies, and ending the universal preschool program for four-year-olds. That won’t come close to keeping Branstad’s promises on spending. Vander Plaats wants to reduce the property tax burden by shifting more responsibility for funding mental health services from local to state government. That may be a worthwhile idea, but how’s he going to pay for that when he’s proposing a bunch of tax cuts? What state programs would Vander Plaats eliminate besides the preschool program, the Values Fund and the Power Fund?

All the Republicans blamed Democrats for not doing enough to fund K-12 education, and Branstad went so far as to blame the preschool program for layoffs in other areas of education. Here’s what they’ll never admit: layoffs in K-12 education and at the Regents universities would have been catastrophic without the 2009 federal stimulus bill. You know, the one passed over the objections of almost every Republican in Congress.

All the Republicans blamed Democrats for allegedly overspending, never acknowledging that the worst recession since World War II strained every state’s budget, and Iowa’s leaders handled the crunch better than officials in most other states.

I agree with the comment released by Governor Chet Culver’s new campaign manager, Donn Stanley:

“This was just another forum where the candidates outlined big tax cuts for their corporate Republican donors without details about where or how they would make cuts and balance the budget.  They pandered to their special interests with more tax cuts and proposed increased spending but with a lack of specifics about how they would pay for it.  All three candidates were for cutting preschool for Iowa’s children in the age when they have the most learning capacity while rewarding out-of-state corporations with more tax breaks.

“None of these candidates have answered the ultimate question of how they would manage to balance the budget today and that is the definition of ‘reckless and irresponsible.’  That leaves the assumption that Terry Branstad would again keep two sets of books and use his accounting tricks to hide the deficit. Branstad was long on hyperbole but short on the facts and new ideas. Branstad must have forgotten, or hopes that we’ve forgotten, he made a few across the board cuts during his tenure as governor. It is sadly par for the course that Terry Branstad attacks others for the same things he has done before.”

Today wasn’t the first time Branstad criticized Culver for things he did while governor, and it won’t be the last.

Post your own reaction to the debate, or anything on your mind this weekend, in this open thread.

UPDATE: Still haven’t seen a transcript of this debate, but you can watch the whole thing at Iowa Public TV’s website.

SECOND UPDATE: I have to agree with Kathie Obradovich; Vander Plaats clearly got under Branstad’s skin during the debate. It didn’t look good for Branstad to interrupt Vander Plaats twice (once near the 59-minute mark in this video and again around the 69-minute mark). According to Obradovich, Branstad kept arguing with Vander Plaats after the cameras had been turned off.

Amazingly, I agreed with all the Republican candidates’ answers to the very last question in the debate: whether Iowa should revoke the smoking ban exemption granted to casino floors. Vander Plaats, Roberts and Branstad all said they would sign legislation to that effect.

Governor Chet Culver announced Friday,

Iowa will accept $35 million in federal funds over the next four years to operate its own temporary health insurance plan for high-risk individuals.  This step will help cover uninsured Iowans as the country transitions toward implementation of federal health insurance reform.

“Every Iowan should have access to affordable health care,” Governor Culver said. “This action is an important first step in reaching this goal.  These funds will allow Iowans who have been among the uninsured for extended time periods to get coverage, in spite of health problems and without waiting periods for existing conditions.”

Iowa will establish a new pool alongside its current high-risk pool structure that will comply with the federal requirements. Under the terms of the federal funding formula, Iowa will be eligible to receive a grant of approximately $35 million in reimbursements to subsidize the cost of the fund until 2014. The state’s next step will be to submit a plan for federal approval.

Here are more details about the program:

Consumers will be eligible for the new pools if they have a pre-existing medical condition and have not had insurance for at least six months.

They will pay premiums that parallel rates being offered by commercial insurers to healthy people on the individual market. Many existing high-risk pools charge such high premiums that many people cannot afford the coverage. Today, high-risk pools in 34 states cover only about 200,000 people.

Individuals who sign up for the new pools also will not have to pay more than $5,950 a year out of their pockets for medical care, according to the legislation.

According to this backgrounder posted at Iowa Independent, the new high-risk pool could serve more than ten times the number of people could affect many people not enrolled in Iowa’s current high-risk pool:

“This is an opportunity for the state to show whether it is ready to put a critical component of health reform – covering people with pre-existing conditions – on a faster track,” said Andrew Cannon, research associate for the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project and author of a new policy brief on the topic.

Cannon said more than 34,500 Iowans could be eligible for Iowa’s existing high-risk pool or a new one the state may create if the state chooses to act now. The federal health-reform legislation allocated $5 billion nationally to states to provide temporary coverage as a bridge to full implementation of health reform, which will require all insurance companies to accept applicants without consideration of a person’s medical condition by 2014.

Iowa created its high-risk pool program in 1987, now known as the Health Insurance Plan of Iowa (HIPIowa). It serves 2,732 state residents.

High-risk pools such as HIPIowa are designed to help individuals who do not have health insurance through work, do not qualify for Medicaid and cannot afford or qualify for individual coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition. HIPIowa’s premiums are about half as expensive as the standard rate for plans sold on the private market, Cannon said, but in many cases those premiums still exceed potential enrollees’ ability to pay.

UPDATE: The Des Moines Register quoted HIPIOWA Executive Director Cecil Bykerk and State Senator Jack Hatch as saying federal funding will allow about 1,000 people to be covered in the new high-risk pool before 2014. That’s a small fraction of the number of Iowans who might be eligible for the program, according to the Iowa Policy Project’s estimate.

The Des Moines Register quoted Rod Roberts and spokesmen for Terry Branstad and Bob Vander Plaats as saying they oppose participation in this new federal program. I don’t know how quickly the new pool will be up and running, but I’d like to see the Republican nominee for governor explain to Iowans with pre-existing conditions why they should have to go without affordable insurance coverage until 2014. Remember, the federal government is subsidizing the cost of operating the new pools.

As of April 30, officials in 28 states had informed the federal Department of Health and Human Services of plans to create new high-risk pools, while officials in at least 15 states had declined to participate for fear that federal funds may be insufficient to cover the operation of these pools until 2014.

A few weeks ago, President Barack Obama advocated expanding offshore oil drilling in a misguided attempt to reach out to Republicans on energy legislation. The president told a town-hall meeting audience on April 2, “It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.” Think Progress exposed the inaccuracies in the president’s comments at the time, and the April 20 explosion at British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig was a tragic reminder of how much can go wrong with offshore drilling. Eleven workers were killed in the accident, and the resulting oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico still has not been contained. If it hits the Gulf Coast, the environmental and economic damage will be immense.

Last week, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs insisted that the tragedy had not given the president second thoughts about offshore drilling:

Obama still believes that “we have to have a comprehensive solution to our energy problems,” and the spill did not open up new questions about his drilling plan, [Gibbs] said. […]

“We need the increased production. The president still continues to believe the great majority of that can be done safely, securely and without any harm to the environment,” he said.

However, presidential adviser David Axelrod announced on ABC’s Good Morning America program today that

there’s a moratorium on the expansion until the recent spill can be controlled and investigated.

“No additional drilling has been authorized and none will until we find out what happened here,” he said.

Mike Lillis is absolutely right:

For the White House, the timing of the spill couldn’t have been worse. If Obama had stuck with his guns in opposing new drilling, he’d be seen as a prophet in the wake of this week’s Gulf disaster. Instead, by trying to make concessions to Republicans – most of whom won’t support a climate bill in any event – he’s simply alienated his conservation-minded supporters to no tangible benefit.

Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, says that any climate change bill including more offshore drilling will be “dead on arrival” in Congress. Let’s hope that message will resonates with the president. I also hope the administration will follow through on promises to make BP pay the full cost of cleaning up the oil spill.

On a related note, Mike Soraghan reports in the New York Times that BP “joined with other oil companies last year to oppose stricter safety and environmental rules” for oil rigs. I’m not surprised, and I’m not optimistic that the current disaster will lead to significantly stronger regulations on existing rigs.

UPDATE: I posted the Sierra Club’s statement after the jump. It’s worth a read.

Today is the last day to submit a public comment to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources urging them not to downgrade protections for more than 400 stream segments. Click the link for background and information on submitting a comment.

Thanks to favorable spring weather, the downtown Des Moines farmer’s market will open for the season tomorrow morning. Local farmers have plenty of produce ready for market now, and I’m looking forward to fresh spring greens.

Also on May 1, the three Republican candidates for governor debate for the second time. The Iowa Broadcast News Association is sponsoring the debate. You can watch live at 3:30 pm on IPTV WORLD (statewide on IPTV.3 or Mediacom channel 119). I’ll be watching the rebroadcast on Iowa Public Television Saturday night at 8 p.m.

Any fans of the Huffington Post should consider coming to hear Arianna Huffington speak at Hoyt Sherman Place in Des Moines next Tuesday.

Follow me after the jump for details on those and many other events taking place in the next week and a half. If you know of other events I’ve left out, please post a comment or e-mail me (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com). Democratic candidates, please put me to your press lists so I can add your public events to my calendar.

Congratulations are in order to Sarah Brown Wessling, an English teacher for Johnston High School who received the National Teacher of the Year award yesterday. Lynda Waddington has more here about Brown Wessling and the award.

UPDATE: I was sad to learn that “the real dean of American journalism” is retiring. From Iowa CCI:

Friday, April 30, 2010, Des Moines, Iowa — Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (Iowa CCI) will be the focus of a twenty-minute segment during the final broadcast of the national television news program Bill Moyers Journal tonight at 9pm on Iowa Public Television. The show will focus on the power of organized people standing up to organized money (corporate power) and will feature interviews and protest footage with Iowa CCI members and leaders.

Bill Moyers Journal is a nationally broadcast, weekly public affairs series that features interviews and news analysis on a wide range of subjects, including politics, arts and culture, the media, the economy and issues facing democracy. Tonight will be Moyers’ last broadcast before retiring after decades as an award-winning television news journalist.