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 “My office has rarely withdrawn from a case in this manner.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.

Today marks the beginning of early voting for Iowa’s June 8 primary election, which is exactly 40 days away. Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro announced a new way for voters to track their ballots at www.iowavotes.gov. From a statement issued by the Secretary of State’s Office:

“The new feature on our website is a terrific tool for Iowa voters and will bring additional transparency to Iowa’s early voting system,” said Secretary Mauro. “By using this feature, voters will know when to expect their ballot and when their completed ballot has safely reached their auditor’s office.”

Absentee voters will be able to view the following information about the status of their ballot:

·         Date the absentee ballot request was processed by the auditor

·         Date the auditor sent the absentee ballot

·         Date the voted absentee ballot was received by the auditor

Last fall, Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Military and Overseas Voters Empowerment Act (MOVE Act). That legislation required states to develop an online absentee ballot tracking system for overseas military voters. Secretary Mauro decided to make this feature available to all of Iowa’s early voters – military and nonmilitary – regardless of location.  

In September 2009, Iowa was recognized in a national study as the top state in the nation in making voting accessible for military and overseas voters.

If you have a chance to see Mauro at one of his campaign kickoff events next Tuesday or Wednesday, please thank him for doing an outstanding job. Three Republicans are seeking the nomination for secretary of state: George Eichhorn, Chris Sanger and Matt Schultz. So far Schultz has the most Republican establishment support.  

Most of the competitive primaries in Iowa this year are on the Republican side, but three Democrats are seeking the nomination for U.S. Senate: Roxanne Conlin, Tom Fiegen and Bob Krause. Two Democrats are running against Representative Steve King in Iowa’s fifth Congressional district: Matt Campbell and Mike Denklau. There’s also a two-way Democratic primary between Richard Clewell and Dave Thede in Iowa Senate district 41 (Scott County) and a four-way Democratic primary between Tod Bowman, Paul Feller, Brian Moore and Ed O’Neill in Iowa Senate district 13 (all of Jackson County and parts of Dubuque and Clinton counties). Five Iowa House Democrats are facing primary challengers: Dave Jacoby (district 30, Iowa City/Coralville), Geri Huser (district 42, east side of Des Moines), Ako Abdul-Samad (district 66, Des Moines), Chuck Isenhart (district 27, Dubuque), and Mary Gaskill (district 93, Ottumwa). Click here to download a pdf file containing the full list of Iowa candidates who qualified for the ballot this year.

Comments about early voting or any Iowa primary races are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that Iowans can also vote early at all 99 county auditor offices.

James Q. Lynch of the Cedar Rapids Gazette talked to Terry Branstad yesterday about the qualities he’s looking for in a potential lieutenant governor. If he wins the nomination, Branstad wants a running mate who is younger than he is (63), and also “intelligent, hardworking, conservative, a good communicator and someone who could serve as governor.” He told Lynch that “some Eastern Iowans” are on his list.

Branstad has promised social conservatives that he won’t pick another pro-choice running mate, so that rules out former State Representative Libby Jacobs of West Des Moines. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Branstad choose Rod Roberts, although Lynch’s report says Branstad “downplayed” the possibility that he will pick one of the other gubernatorial candidates.

Any of the 20 state legislators who have endorsed Branstad for governor could be on Branstad’s short list. Or, he may look to someone from the business community, but it’s been months since I heard anyone predict that insurance company executive Doug Reichardt would be Branstad’s choice. Perhaps there’s some truth to the rumors that Reichardt isn’t interested in being lieutenant governor.

If Branstad looks east, one obvious contender is Christian Fong, the well-spoken former candidate for governor from Cedar Rapids. Last month State Representative Renee Schulte endorsed Branstad, and since Schulte’s husband was Fong’s campaign treasurer, I wondered whether some kind of deal was in the works. But Fong hasn’t endorsed any candidate since he dropped out of the race six months ago. Earlier this month he founded the Iowa Dream Project, a “nonpartisan” 501(c)4 organization designed to increase turnout among conservative voters under age 45 and discuss issues in a respectful “Iowa tone.” I doubt Fong would have rolled out this group now if he expected to be running for lieutenant governor full-time during the next six months. It sounds more like a good way for him to stay active, help the Republican cause, and boost his prospects for some appointed position in a Branstad administration.

Another eastern Iowa possibility is former State Representative Sandy Greiner. Choosing her would continue the Iowa tradition of female lieutenant governors during the past two and a half decades. Greiner is an experienced candidate with socially conservative views (even if a few wingnuts gripe about her). She is also well-connected to some major donors in the business community. She is president of the American Future Fund and created the “Draft Branstad PAC” last year. That 527 organization turned into the NextGen PAC after Branstad formed an exploratory committee to run for governor. I don’t think Greiner will be Branstad’s choice, though, because she filed to run for the Iowa Senate in district 45. That race is one of the Republicans’ best pickup opportunities in the upper chamber, and I doubt she would have become a candidate if she expected to be on the ticket with Branstad.

Though no one else has mentioned her name to me, State Representative Linda Miller seems like a promising choice. She has endorsed Branstad and is from Bettendorf, one of the Quad Cities. Republicans used to be dominant in populous Scott County but have lost ground there in recent years.

Some conservative activists have slammed Branstad for elevating Joy Corning to the office of lieutenant governor during the 1990s. Lynch asked Branstad about Corning, and he said she was a good choice “at the time”. He added that he disagrees with some of what Corning has done as a “private citizen.” Several years ago, Corning chaired a major capital campaign for Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa. Last year she publicly supported civil marriage rights for gays and lesbians. Corning backs Branstad’s current campaign and is privately urging fellow moderates to vote for him in the primary.

Bleeding Heartland readers, who do you think is on Branstad’s short list, and whom should he pick as a running mate?

Feel free to speculate about Bob Vander Plaats as well. From what I’ve heard, the consensus is that he would choose his campaign co-chair, retiring State Representative Jodi Tymeson. I consider Vander Plaats a long-shot for the nomination, especially with Rod Roberts splitting the conservative vote. But we haven’t seen any public polls confirming Branstad’s front-runner status. Vander Plaats does have a path to the nomination, and he keeps winning straw polls of Republican activists.  

Remember last year when Republicans claimed health care reform would put government bureaucrats between patients and their doctors? It was a hypocritical talking point to begin with, given how often insurance companies overrule doctors’ orders, in some cases denying sick people access to life-saving medical care.

The hypocrisy is especially apparent now that Republicans are cheering two new laws passed in Oklahoma.

The Oklahoma Legislature voted Tuesday to override the governor’s vetoes of two abortion measures, one of which requires women to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting an abortion.

Though other states have passed similar measures requiring women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, mandating that a doctor or technician set up the monitor so the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

A second measure passed into law on Tuesday prevents women who have had a disabled baby from suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects while the child was in the womb.

To clarify: Republicans passed a law dictating the way doctors communicate with patients and how they must proceed with every woman seeking an abortion, regardless of her individual circumstances. According to the New York Times, the Center for Reproductive Rights has already filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the ultrasound law, claiming it “violates the doctor’s freedom of speech, the woman’s right to equal protection and the woman’s right to privacy.”

The second law is in some ways more offensive, because the government is shielding doctors who deliberately do not level with their patients. I have close friends who have learned while pregnant that their future child has serious medical problems. To give doctors license to deceive women in that situation is unconscionable. Pregnant women must be able to make informed decisions regarding all medical care. Who’s to say that doctors will stop at “merely” hiding birth defects? Maybe some will decide it’s better not to tell women they have cancer or some other disease that might prompt them to terminate a pregnancy.

The new laws are similar to two anti-abortion laws the Oklahoma Supreme Court already struck down. Clearly Republicans won’t let a little thing like the state constitution get in the way of their desire to intimidate women and interfere with the information they receive from their doctors. I agree with Charles Lemos: this is a sign of how extreme today’s Republican Party has become.

Iowans who don’t take reproductive rights for granted may want to know that Arianna Huffington is coming to Des Moines next Tuesday to help raise money for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (formerly Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa). Click the link for event details.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread. I recommend this post from the Ms. Magazine blog on the 10 worst myths about abortion in the United States.

The Libertarian Party of Iowa convened on April 24 to nominate several candidates for statewide offices. The Libertarian candidate for governor is Eric Cooper, a neuroscience expert in the Iowa State University Psychology department. In his speech to the delegates, Cooper said frankly that the Libertarian Party had not been effective in the past. He laid out a “10 percent strategy” for Libertarians to “get everything we want without ever winning an election.” You can watch Cooper’s whole speech here, but I posted a rough transcript of some interesting parts after the jump.

President Barack Obama is touring southeast Iowa today, visiting three counties that have high unemployment rates. He stopped at a wind turbine blade plant in Mount Pleasant to tout the economic benefits of investing in clean energy.  IowaPolitics.com covered the president’s stops in Fort Madison and Mount Pleasant here. You can also listen to the speech he gave in Fort Madison. Obama acknowledged that “In too many places, the recovery isn’t reaching everybody just yet. And times are still tough for middle-class Americans, who have been swimming against the current for years before this economic tidal wave hit.” Governor Chet Culver joined the president at the Fort Madison event.

While in Mount Pleasant, Obama stopped at an organic farm and a small restaurant. Former Governor Tom Vilsack, whom Obama appointed as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, was with the president in Mount Pleasant, where he was once mayor.

Obama then headed to Ottumwa for a town-hall meeting, which you can watch at the KCCI site. Kathie Obradovich is live-tweeting the event.

I’ll update this post with more links later. Meanwhile, share any thoughts about the president’s visit. I hope someone who was there will post a comment or a diary here later.

This evening there will be a party for Obama’s adviser David Axelrod at Baby Boomer’s in the East Village. That would be a fun place to eavesdrop.

UPDATE: Kay Henderson posted a good play-by-play of the Ottumwa event at the Radio Iowa blog. The president went out of his way to mention that Senate Republicans have twice blocked debate on a financial reform package. I like that Obama wondered out loud why people weren’t out protesting budget deficits during the past ten years. The previous administration left more than a $1 trillion deficit on his desk. I didn’t fully understand this passage, though:

Obama mentioned health care reform, and got a standing ovation from the crowd.  “I’m proud of it,” Obama repeats twice.

Obama talked about meeting a woman named Janice in Mount Pleasant earlier this afternoon.  According to Obama, Janice told him she and her husband “need help now because our premiums just went up $700 per month.”  Obama added:  “That’s who reform was for.”

Obama ran through a litany of items in the plan which will take effect this year.  

If Janice is supposed to believe that the new health insurance reform law will keep her premiums from being jacked up in the future, she’ll probably be disappointed. No new competition has been created for private insurers, and there are virtually no limits on how much they can raise premiums before 2014.

Like John Deeth, I’m amused that Mariannette Miller-Meeks claims Obama visited southeast Iowa because Democrats think Representative Dave Loebsack “is in deep, deep political trouble.” I noticed yesterday that Rob Gettemy, another Republican in the IA-02 primary, made the same claim.

Obviously, the president visited those counties because of the relatively high unemployment rates there, and because he could tout renewable energy tax credits at the Siemens plant in Fort Madison. Republicans are deluding themselves if they think Loebsack is vulnerable. As I’ve discussed before, very few Republicans represent House districts with anything close to the Democratic lean of Iowa’s second district (D+7). If the Iowa GOP wanted to put this district in play, they should have run a Jim Leach-type moderate who could pound on the economic issues (fiscal policies and unemployment) while leaving the divisive social issues off the table. Instead, four Republicans are trying to out-conservative each other in the primary for the right to face Loebsack.

One year ago today, the Iowa Supreme Court’s Varnum v Brien ruling went into effect. From April 27, 2009 through the end of last year, at least 1,783 same-sex couples received marriage licenses in Iowa. The real number is probably higher, because about 900 marriage licenses did not specify the gender of the couple involved. Despite a petition drive led by some Iowa Republicans and the Iowa Family Policy Center, not a single county recorder denied a marriage license to a same-sex couple.

Although all three Republican candidates for governor say they want to overturn the Varnum v Brien ruling, marriage equality is probably here to stay. Conservative groups are not urging voters to pass a ballot initiative calling for a constitutional convention, which would be the quickest path to amend the Iowa constitution. Bob Vander Plaats probably won’t win the Republican nomination for governor, much less the November election, and even if he did, his plan to halt gay marriage by executive order is a non-starter.

That leaves the self-styled defenders of traditional marriage one path: approving an amendment restricting marriage rights in two separately elected Iowa legislatures, then convincing a majority of Iowans to vote for that amendment (in November 2014 at the earliest).

Republicans have an outside shot at winning a majority in the Iowa House in 2010, but they have virtually no chance of taking back the Iowa Senate this year. Democrats currently hold a 32-18 majority in the upper chamber. A net gain of four or five seats is the best-case scenario for the GOP, and I consider a net gain of two or three seats much more likely. That leaves Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal in a position to block all efforts to bring a constitutional amendment on marriage to a floor vote during the 2011 and 2012 legislative sessions.

Gubernatorial candidate Rod Roberts claims he could force Democrats to allow a marriage vote. His plan is to veto all legislation, including the state budget, until the Iowa House and Senate have voted on a marriage amendment. I doubt a Republican could win that game of chicken even if Governor Chet Culver is defeated this November. Polling indicates that most Iowans are not eager to ban gay marriage and think the state legislature has more important things to do. Anyway, the most likely Republican nominee, Terry Branstad, has an incoherent position on gay marriage and probably would make only a token effort to get a constitutional amendment passed.

Share any thoughts about same-sex marriage in Iowa in this thread.

Speaking of civil rights, some reports indicate that the House of Representatives will vote this year to repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which has ended far too many military careers. Click here to read a moving open letter to President Obama from an Air Force major who was discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

A month after the House and Senate unanimously approved a bill restricting direct-mail pieces designed to look like census documents, the Republican National Committee is at it again:

An RNC mailer obtained by TPMmuckraker bears the words “Census Document” and, in all caps, “DO NOT DESTROY/OFFICIAL DOCUMENT,” on the outside of the envelope. In smaller letters, it says: “This is not a U.S. government document.” The new law requires, among other things, that such mailers state the name and address of the sender on the outside of the envelope — something the RNC’s missive doesn’t appear to do. Inside, a letter from RNC chair Michael Steele, dated April 12, asks recipients to fill out a questionnaire about their political views, and solicits donations of as much as $500 or more. (See the mailer here.)

Last month, in response to virtually identical RNC mailers, members of both parties cried foul, raising the concern that the mailers could reduce the response rate for the actual Census — which was mailed to Americans last month — by confusing some voters. […] Congress quickly passed a law — the House vote was 416-0 — requiring that mailers marked “census” state the name and address of the sender on the outside of the envelope, and contain an unambiguous disclaimer making clear that the mailer is not affiliated with the government.

Based on a PDF image, the mailer obtained by TPMmuckraker does not appear to state the sender’s name and address on the outside. And the words “DO NOT DESTROY/OFFICIAL DOCUMENT” would appear to make the disclaimer that it’s not a government document less than unambiguous.

The RNC’s fundraising efforts have taken a hit this year, and Chairman Michael Steele is under pressure to turn things around, so I can’t say I’m surprised by this desperate act.

On a related note, census mail-back rates exceeded expectations this year, which will save the U.S. Census Bureau hundreds of millions of dollars. Iowa’s census participation rate is 77 percent so far, tied for third with Indiana and just behind Wisconsin and Minnesota. Many communities in Polk County have participation rates over 80 percent.  

Democrats and Republicans gathered for district conventions over the weekend, and after reading John Deeth’s helpful news roundup I headed over to The Iowa Republican blog to watch some clips from the third district GOP convention. Congressional candidate Jim Gibbons had supporters wearing “Burn the Boats” t-shirts, which he explained toward the end of his speech to the delegates:

Gibbons talks about being a competitor, wanting to take down the champion and why this will be a tough race. Here is my rough transcript of the most intriguing part, beginning around the 3:30 mark:

If you look around this group right here, you’ll see people who have never been a part of this process. They’re new, they’re young people, they’ve got those “Burn the Boats” shirts on. People ask, “What’s that about?” Let me give you the explanation.

In the 1500s, the conqueror [Hernando] Cortés was going up against the Aztec army. He decided that to motivate his people, to get them fired up about the job that they had to do–they were outnumbered vastly–he made the decision: burn the boats. If we’re successful, we’ll go home in their boats.

That’s the attitude of this campaign. That’s what I’m about. I’m totally committed to beating Leonard Boswell. I have the resources, the will, the determination to beat him in November. I’m asking you to join me in this fight. We will win in November. I’m burning my boats, and I’m attacking the island, thank you and God bless.

Technically, Cortés scuttled (not burned) his ships in order to prevent another mutiny after one failed attempt. He wasn’t motivating his troops by the prospect of winning and going home in Aztec boats; he was making them give up hope of returning from the new world. According to Wikipedia, the “popular misconception that Cortés burned the ships […] may have come from a mistranslation of the version of the story written in Latin.”

I get Gibbons’ point: he’s all in to win this race, having quit his job as a financial adviser when he decided to run for Congress. He’s drawing an unspoken contrast with his chief Republican rival Brad Zaun, who has his state Senate seat and a job in real estate to go back to if he loses to Boswell.

Still, “burn the boats” seems weird for a campaign slogan, and I have to wonder whose idea it was to pick a greedy and brutal Spanish conquistador for a role model.

Speaking of strange historical inspiration, Josh Marshall is bewildered that “The Republican Governors Association is embracing the mantle of a 17th century radical who tried but failed to pull off a mass casualty terrorist attack to kill the King of England and all of Parliament.” Michael Scherer reported for Time’s Swampland blog,

The Republican Governors Association has embraced the symbolism of [Guy] Fawkes, launching a rather striking website, RememberNovember.com, with a video that showcases far more Hollywood savvy than one can usually expect from Republicans. Again, the Fawkes tale has been twisted a bit. This time, President Obama plays the roll of King James, the Democratic leadership is Parliament, and the Republican Party represents the aggrieved Catholic mass.

I’ve spent a few Guy Fawkes Days in the UK. The holiday is marked by fireworks and bonfires to celebrate the failure of Fawkes’ plot. There’s even a nursery rhyme, “Remember remember the fifth of November, gunpowder, treason and plot.” Republicans may have embraced the wrong hero out of confusion. Or perhaps Steve Benen is right: “the Republican mainstream made a right turn at scary, and have arrived right at stark raving mad.”

Any comments about campaign strategy or sloganeering are welcome in this thread. I love the official statements from tea party favorite Dave Funk’s third district campaign, which often start out with, “Congress needs Funk.”

Final note on Gibbons: Kathie Obradovich reports that he’ll be featured on a show for a new conservative television network later this year. That could become embarrassing if Zaun defeats Gibbons, the National Republican Campaign Committee’s favorite, in the June 8 primary or at a district convention to select the nominee.

President Barack Obama is coming back to Iowa this Tuesday with stops scheduled in Fort Madison, Mount Pleasant and Ottumwa. More details on those and other events coming up during the next two weeks can be found after the jump.

The Republican Party of Iowa is organizing a “Stand Up 4 Freedom Rally” on Monday at 5:00 in Ottumwa’s Central Park.

Congratulations to everyone elected to the Iowa Democratic Party’s State Central Committee at the district conventions this weekend.

First district: Jean Pardee, Sue Frembgen, Michael Blackwell, Jerry Lynch, Bruce Clark and Jane Lawrence

Second district: Ebony Luensman, Judy Stevens, Melinda Jones, Norm Sterzenbach, Kory May and Al Bohanan

Third distict: Dori Rammelsberg-Dvorak, Mary Campos, Linda Olson, John McCormly, Bill Brauch and Glen Rammelsberg

Fourth district: Susan Seedorff-Keninger, Karen Pratte, Lois Jirgens, Chris Petersen, Tom Harrington and Don Ruby

Fifth district: Monica McCarthy, Penny Rosjford, Marcia Fulton, Tim Bottaro, Dennis Ryan and Dick Sokolowski

Consider this an open thread for discussing anything on your mind this weekend.

A British historian of Russia got caught hiding behind a pseudonym on Amazon in order to post nasty reviews of rival historians’ work while praising his own. One of the historians he trashed responded here. Fortunately, Bleeding Heartland has had few problems with sock-puppetry. Thanks to everyone who respects this community’s rules of engagement.

Arizona’s Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed a law yesterday that makes it “a state crime to be in the country illegally” and “requires local law enforcement to determine an individual’s immigration status if an officer suspects that person is in the country illegally.” Civil rights groups are already preparing federal lawsuits, and President Barack Obama called the bill “misguided”, adding, “I’ve instructed members of my admininstration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation.”

The American Civil Liberties Union explained why we should be outraged about this law:

The law creates new immigration crimes and penalties inconsistent with those in federal law, asserts sweeping authority to detain and transport persons suspected of violating civil immigration laws and prohibits speech and other expressive activity by persons seeking work. The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona strongly condemn the governor’s decision to sign the unconstitutional law and are dismayed by her disregard for the serious damage it could cause to civil liberties and public safety in the state.[…]

The new law, which will not go into effect for more than 90 days, requires police agencies across Arizona to investigate the immigration status of every person they come across whom they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe is in the country unlawfully. To avoid arrest, citizens and immigrants will effectively have to carry their “papers” at all times. The law also makes it a state crime for immigrants to willfully fail to register with the Department of Homeland Security and carry registration documents. It further curtails the free speech rights of day laborers and encourages unchecked information sharing between government agencies.

Naturally, conservatives who claim to be for small government love the expansion of police powers in Arizona.

Representative Raul Grijalva, one of the leaders of the House Progressive Caucus, closed his Arizona offices yesterday following threatening phone calls. Grijalva also “called on businesses and groups looking for convention and meeting locations to boycott Arizona.” Already yesterday the American Immigration Lawyers Association canceled plans to hold the group’s fall national convention in Scottsdale. A petition has been created to urge California’s state pension fund to “divest from all Arizona companies” and sell all Arizona real estate.

The law may never be enforced, depending on what happens with the federal lawsuits, but some people are predicting it will boost support for Democrats among Latino voters.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread. For comic relief, I recommend reading the official statement from Arizona Hispanic Republicans. After criticizing the (Republican) state legislators who spearheaded the bill and the (Republican) governor who signed the bill, they say they are “ultimately holding President Obama accountable,” because “Obama promised Hispanics that he would pass immigration reform within 90 days of his Presidency.  Had Obama carried out his promises to Hispanics last year, the Hispanic community would not be experiencing the crisis we are experiencing right now.” That’s quite a creative way to misdirect blame.