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

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

When the President signs the Department of Defense Authorization bill into law, DADT will not instantly be repealed.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

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

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

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

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

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

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

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

Rough transcript:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* A 100 percent write-off of new equipment

* Abolishing the capital gains tax like China

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

* Abolishing the death tax permanently

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rough transcript:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the White House blog,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rough transcript by me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share any thoughts about the Republican primary in this thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some farmers are afraid of me.

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

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

____________________

Dear Jerry,

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

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

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

The Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee met yesterday in Washington and approved a proposed calendar for the 2012 presidential nominating process. The DemRulz blog noted that the calendar “tracks the DNC Change Commission recommendations,” which state that all primaries and caucuses must be held in March 2012 or later, except for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, which may schedule their nominating contests in February 2012. In a statement released to the media, Iowa Democratic Party Chair Michael Kiernan hailed the vote as “another important step” that “will help us ensure that Iowa is First-in-the-Nation once again.”

The Republican National Committee has moved toward a similar calendar in 2012, with the same four states allowed to schedule primaries or caucuses in February, and all other states allowed to go beginning March 1. The final calendar may not reflect the RNC’s wishes, though; some states may try to jump ahead the way Florida and Michigan did in 2008.

I suspect Iowa’s representatives will have to fight hard to maintain our early position for the 2016 campaign. Democrats in several larger states resent the outsized influence of Iowa and New Hampshire, which are small and predominantly white. The calendar doesn’t matter much on the Democratic side for 2012, because it’s unlikely anyone will challenge Barack Obama for the nomination, but the next cycle will certainly be competitive, whether or not Obama wins a second term.

Every time I receive a fund raising call from the Iowa Democratic party they hit me first with a long list of accomplishments that read exactly like Republican plans : Kept taxes low, encouraged small business growth, balanced the budget.

You know how that sounds to me?  It sounds like this : We kept allowable growth for K-12 education below levels seen under Republican control.  We forced the regents institutions to freeze salaries and use mandated furloughs. We forced layoff to state police and social workers.

If you’re calling a loyal Democrat to get Democratic support, emphasize Democratic goals, don’t try to pre-empt Republican attack ads to me.  The only substantial Democratic thing this group of Democrats have done as far as I can tell is simply not fighting the same sex marriage ruling.

In December, the Obama administration signaled its intention to move some federal prisoners as well as detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Illinois, just across the Mississippi River from Clinton, Iowa.

However, on May 19 the House Armed Services Committee “unanimously approved a defense bill for 2011 that bans spending money to build or modify any facility inside the United States to house Guantánamo detainees,” the New York Times reported.

At TalkLeft, Jeralyn posted an excerpt from the bill summary:

The Committee firmly believes that the construction or modification of any facility in the U.S. to detain or imprison individuals currently being held at Guantanamo must be accompanied by a thorough and comprehensive plan that outlines the merits, costs, and risks associated with utilizing such a facility. No such plan has been presented to date. The bill prohibits the use of any funds for this purpose. Additionally, the bill requires the Secretary of Defense to present Congress with a report that adequately justifies any proposal to build or modify such a facility in the future.

Last fall prominent Iowa Republicans fanned fears about terrorists in the heartland as a political weapon against President Obama and Representative Bruce Braley, who represents the Iowa counties closest to Thomson, Illinois. At the time, Braley expressed support for the plan to convert the Illinois facility, saying his constituents “have told me with a resounding voice they want these jobs to come to their area.” Some jobs will almost certainly come to the area in 2011 or 2012, because the federal government still plans to purchase and renovate the Thomson Correctional Center to use for federal prisoners, with or without detainees from Guantanamo.

Iowa Democrats Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell are among the 61 members of the House Armed Services Committee. I don’t know whether they were present at Wednesday’s meeting, where the defense authorization bill passed by a 59 to 0 vote.

Jim Gibbons unveiled a new tv ad for his Congressional campaign today:

Rough transcript by me:

Male voice-over: Jim Gibbons’ values are hard work, honesty, and family. A champion wrestler, coach and financial adviser, he’s learned that listening to the voters is the most important part of being a leader in Congress. Above all, Jim Gibbons knows what’s important in life is being Annie’s husband and a great father to their three girls. It’s through their eyes Jim is running for Congress, to stop the out-of-control spending, cut taxes, and grow Iowa jobs. Jim Gibbons for Congress.

Gibbons voice: I’m Jim Gibbons, I approved this message.

Like Gibbons’ previous ad, this commercial has strong visuals and production values. The message seems generic to me, but in a crowded primary maybe it’s sufficient to build name recognition and favorable impressions of the candidate.

The Gibbons campaign has purchased “a significant buy of air-time to run this ad” and expects it to reach “a majority of voters” in the third Congressional district. My hunch is that this commercial will run on a broader range of programs than the traditional Iowa combination of local news and Wheel of Fortune. I suspect it will air on some programs with a predominantly female audience; to me this ad seems targeted toward women, whereas State Senator Brad Zaun’s ads seem very male-oriented, with a “tea party” edge. Perhaps Gibbons’ internal polling suggests there are more undecided women voters.

I got a kick out of this passage in Gibbons’ news release:

“This ad will be a great opportunity for me to reach the thousands of voters that will be going to the polls on June 8th.  I am running for Congress to reduce wasteful spending in Washington and grow jobs in Iowa,” said Jim Gibbons.  “I believe central Iowa needs a Congressman that will represent Iowa values, not Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco-style values.”

Keep bashing Nancy Pelosi and her San Francisco values, Republicans. Your “cookie-cutter” messaging just flopped in the special election in Pennsylvania’s 12th district. PA-12 should have been more winnable for Republicans than IA-03 for the reasons I discussed toward the end of this post.

Bleeding Heartland readers, what do you think of this commercial and the third district race?

P.S. Could some Republican English teacher please inform the Gibbons campaign about correct usage of “that” and “who”? (As in, the thousands of voters who will vote on June 8, and a member of Congress who will represent Iowa values.)

Secretary of State Michael Mauro’s office released new numbers today for Iowans voting early in the June 8 primary election.

As of today, 9,209 ballots have been received by county auditor offices across the state. The breakdown by political party is as follows:

Absentee Ballots Received: 9,209

Democrats – 2,140

Republicans – 7,069

Absentee Ballots Sent: 20,269

Democrats – 5,305

Republicans – 14,964

To view these numbers by Congressional district, visit www.iowavotes.gov.

The deadline to request a mailed absentee ballot is June 4 at 5:00 p.m. Absentee ballots returned by mail must be postmarked on or before June 7. Voters may still request absentee ballots in-person at their county auditor’s office until close of business on June 7, the day before Primary Day.

On Saturday, June 5, county auditors’ offices will be open for in-person absentee voting. Voters may check with their county auditor for business hours on this day. In addition, voted absentee ballots requested by mail may be hand-delivered to the county auditor’s office until the close of the polls at 9:00 p.m. on Primary Day.

Secretary Mauro encourages those voters who have received absentee ballots to be sure to return completed ballots to their county auditor’s office prior to the deadline.

In order to participate in Iowa’s Primary Election on June 8, eligible voters will need to register either as a Democrat or as a Republican.

For more information on the 2010 Primary Election, visit www.iowavotes.gov.

Note: the number of “absentee ballots received” includes people who have voted early in person, either at a satellite voting location or at their county auditor’s office.

The disparity between ballots requested by Republicans and Democrats is expected, since Democrats have relatively few contested primaries going on (the U.S. Senate race, the fifth Congressional district, a few Iowa House districts and Iowa Senate district 13). Republicans have a three-way primary for governor, two candidates for state treasurer, three candidates for secretary of state, crowded primaries in the first, second and third Congressional districts, and many competitive primaries in Iowa House and Senate districts.

I am surprised there aren’t even more Republican absentee ballots outstanding. From what I’ve heard and read, Terry Branstad’s campaign is making a major push on the absentee ballot front. Supposedly Brad Zaun has been working on turning out third district Republicans to the satellite voting location in Urbandale. I would have expected more than 22,000 Republicans across the state to have voted early or requested an absentee ballot by now. (Approximately 200,000 people voted in the 2002 Iowa Republican primary.) Maybe there will be a surge of voters in the last two weeks before election day, or maybe Republicans just reject early voting on principle.

If you are voting by mail, you can track your absentee ballot through a new feature on the Iowa Secretary of State’s website. I prefer to vote early in person; it only took me a few minutes at the Polk County Auditor’s Office.

UPDATE: Melissa Walker posted a good story on this at IowaPolitics.com. She has numbers and return rates for several large counties. According to Polk County Auditor Jamie Fitzgerald, “many of the early ballots are from the Urbandale area,” which may favor Zaun in the third district primary.

The U.S. Senate passed the Wall Street reform bill today by a 59 to 39 vote (roll call here). The vote was mostly along party lines, but Democrats Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Maria Cantwell or Washington voted no, while Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Iowa’s own Chuck Grassley voted yes. Earlier today, a cloture motion to end debate on the bill passed 60 to 40. Only three Republicans voted for the cloture motion (Snowe, Collins and Brown). In other words, Grassley voted against letting the bill advance before he voted for it.

Grassley typically wouldn’t be the only conservative Republican voting with a handful of New England moderates. Like Howie Klein, I wonder whether Grassley was concerned about this bill becoming an election issue. Roxanne Conlin’s campaign blasted Grassley yesterday for joining the Republican filibuster of the bill.

The financial reform now goes to a formal conference committee to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions. Annie Lowrey discussed that process and some of the contentious issues here. I’m not hopeful about the final product.

Lots of amendments to more strongly regulate the financial industry bill didn’t get a vote in the Senate, including Tom Harkin’s proposed limit on ATM fees. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Carl Levin of Michigan were unable to get a vote on their amendment to reinstate the “Volcker rule” (banning proprietary trading by banks). There was a small silver lining in that opposition to Merkley-Levin scuttled a horrible idea. Earlier this week Merkley and Levin attached their amendment to a terrible Republican amendment, which would “[exempt] auto dealers from new consumer protection laws, even though auto loans are the biggest instances of financial malfeasance against consumers, especially military personnel.” Today Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas withdrew his auto dealer amendment in order to prevent Merkley-Levin from getting a vote.

UPDATE: Statements from Harkin, Grassley and Conlin are after the jump. Harkin and Grassley both called the bill “a step in the right direction” even as they lamented its flaws. Harkin lamented that several specific proposals were not adopted or considered, while Grassley called attention to his amendments that became part of the bill. Conlin praised Grassley’s vote for the reform bill and claimed that grassroots efforts “turned up the heat” on Grassley, prompting him to reverse “his five previous votes to block debate on Wall Street reform.”

Financial reports for Iowa statewide candidates covering the period from January 1 through May 14 are now available at the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board website. John Deeth summarized the numbers for the statewide races other than the governor’s race, which I discussed earlier today.

The biggest surprise to me was Republican Brenna Findley’s haul in the attorney general’s race. She raised $124,078 since January 1 and has $95,528 on hand. Incumbent Attorney General Tom Miller clearly wasn’t focused on raising money, bringing in just $15,748. Because he started the year with nearly $90,000 in his account, he still has more cash on hand than Findley ($105,200), but Findley has a larger donor base (more than 700 donors).

As a long-time top staffer for Representative Steve King, Findley probably benefits from his donor contacts. It can’t hurt that Terry Branstad is talking up Findley at every campaign stop too. Deeth concludes, “We may have found our downballot sleeper race for the general election.” I don’t think Findley has a chance against Miller, who has been elected attorney general seven times. But she will be able to run a statewide campaign and raise her profile substantially. Miller will have to take this race seriously. His campaigning skills may be rusty, since Republicans gave him a pass in 2006. However, he has a strong record, and it’s worth recalling that he was returned to the attorney general’s office in 1994, an atrocious year for Iowa Democrats.

In all the other statewide races, the incumbents have huge financial advantages over their challengers. Secretary of State Michael Mauro has raised $30,021 since the start of the year, more than his three Republican opponents combined. Mauro has just under $128,000 on hand, whereas Matt Schultz and George Eichhorn both have more outstanding bills than cash on hand, and Chris Sanger has only about $400 on hand. Deeth has more on who’s given to Schultz and Eichhorn. Speaking of this race, I learned recently that the Secretary of State Project has endorsed Mauro.

State Treasurer Michael Fitzgerald hasn’t raised much money so far in 2010 ($4,179), but he started the year with nearly $114,000 and spent almost nothing, leaving about $117,770 cash on on hand. Two Republicans are running against Fitzgerald, and their campaigns have less than $10,000 cash on hand combined. Story County Treasurer Dave Jamison has broader support than James Heavens of Dyersville, who loaned his campaign most of the money raised.

Republican Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey raised nearly $40,000, and even though he spent quite a lot for this early in the campaign ($53,920), he still has $247,535 on hand. Democrat Francis Thicke raised $58,439, including a $10,000 contribution from the candidate, and has an impressive number of donors (at least 300). He spent a little more than $25,000 and has $33,320 on hand. Corporate interest groups will make sure Northey has tons of money to spend. Thicke will have to run a more grassroots campaign.

Share any thoughts about the statewide races in this thread.

The major party candidates for governor have submitted financial reports for the first four and a half months of this year. Former Governor Terry Branstad raised the most money during the period and is on track to spend more than $2 million before the June 8 Republican primary. Governor Chet Culver raised almost as much as Branstad since January 1 and has the most cash on hand by far. Republican candidates Bob Vander Plaats and Rod Roberts are way behind in terms of fundraising.

More details and analysis are after the jump. UPDATE: I’ve listed the contributors who gave at least $10,000 to the Culver or Branstad campaigns during the latest reporting period.

By the way, the three Republican candidates face off in their third and final debate today at noon. You can watch live at the Des Moines Register or Iowa Public Television sites.  

This post is in NO way original, but I think it tells an important story about how we all need to critically evaluate our media – from the left & right.

Between now and election day there will be countless ups and downs…scandals & missteps…and other events that will look like they are the end of things for one candidate or another.  It's important to realize these are just “snapshots” as are the snap polls and other data that float around when these stories are breaking.

We need to be able to step back and review the news critically, as well as the polling.  The story of CT-SEN Candidate Richard Blumenthal is a case in point.  Now, I'm not defending his rhetoric and how he loosely talks about his service in the reserves during the Vietnam War (if not technically false, at least a bit dishonest)…His people should have squashed that language long ago, but the story is important, regardless.  More below…..