I spent most of Saturday in Coon Rapids at the events celebrating the 50th anniversary of Nikita Khrushchev’s visit to Iowa, so I missed the live coverage of Ted Kennedy’s funeral. Several people told me former Senator John Culver’s remarks were a must-see, so I wanted to post the video for the Bleeding Heartland community:

Share any thoughts about the Kennedy funeral or legacy in this thread.

Around 5:30 on Friday afternoon I received a robocall paid for by the Democratic National Committee on behalf of Organizing for America. The voice informed me about a rally for health care reform, scheduled for Saturday at 6 pm just west of the state capitol building in Des Moines. Press 1 if you plan to attend.

I didn’t press 1 and stayed on the line to see what would happen. The voice came back, telling me “The president needs you to show support” for reform.

The folks at Organizing for America have some pronoun trouble. It’s not President Obama who needs us. We need him to show support for real reform.  

In four days voters will elect a new state representative in Iowa House district 90. Here are some links to recent news in the campaign.

The Iowa Democratic Party has organizers in the district, and they are doing a good job:

A report released today by the Iowa Secretary of State shows that of the 2,156 early absentee ballots received in his office by noon, 1,308 of them were from Democrats while 603 were from Republicans. The rest were from people who registered as no- or other-party voters.

This is no time for complacency, though, because low-turnout by-elections tend to favor opposition parties. Iowa Republicans have a lot of angry, enthusiastic activists. Click here to volunteer for Curt Hanson’s campaign, and be sure to remind your friends and relatives in district 90 to vote on Tuesday.

Jason Clayworth of the Des Moines Register and Jason Hancock of Iowa Independent reported on the disclosure reports filed by Hanson and Republican Stephen Burgmeier. Burgmeier is getting much more help from outside groups; the National Organization for Marriage is spending nearly $90,000 on advertising, and Iowans for Tax Relief has also been running ads supporting Burgmeier.

One Iowa, an advocacy group supporting marriage equality, has slammed the National Organization for Marriage’s involvement in this race:

This is not an isolated effort, but an organized, well-funded, full-throated assault on civil marriage equality across the country. The same extremists that bankrolled ballot initiative efforts in Maine and California are now spending money to buy an election in Iowa. NOM has a history of funneling money from the Mormon Church into anti-gay measures, while refusing to disclose the source of their funds.

Click here to sign One Iowa’s petition demanding that the National Organization for Marriage disclose their funding sources. By the way, a money laundering complaint has been filed in Maine in response to the way groups including the National Organization for Marriage are funding efforts to overturn same-sex marriage rights in Maine.

The Fairness Fund PAC has a blog here with a field organizer’s updates from district 90. The Fairness Fund also has received a matching gift pledge to help respond to the NOM’s effots. Click here to donate so they can meet their fundraising goal. Hard work on the ground will determine the outcome in this special election.

If you’re on Twitter, use #HD90 to find updates from Republicans and Democrats who are involved in this race.

Share any thoughts about the campaign or election predictions in this thread.

No surprises here: Congressman Steve “10 worst” King announced yesterday that he won’t run for governor in 2010.

U.S. News and World Report this month ranked King among Obama’s “top five foes.”

“There are compelling reasons to run for governor and have the direct influence on policy that can shift the state. That’s been weighing on me for a long time,” King told The Des Moines Register. “But the final deciding factor is this: If America takes this leftward lurch, it won’t matter what we do in Iowa if we don’t get it right in Washington.” […]

King declined to say whether he thinks Branstad ought to run.

“There is no one in the state of Iowa who loves Iowa more than Terry Branstad,” he said. “If he does run, it would be a pay cut, and it wouldn’t be because he needs to pad his resume. I would certainly respect him if he does.”

Although King made some noise about running for governor after the Iowa Supreme Court cleared the way for same-sex marriage in April, I never thought it likely that he would give up a safe seat in the U.S. House to get beaten by Chet Culver. Also, his current position gives his son, Jeff King, a full-time job as manager of the congressman’s re-election campaigns.  

A new law will encourage local food production in Illinois.  The Local Food, Farms, and Jobs Act sets procurement goals of local farm and food products for food purchases funded by the state.

One goal of the law is that by 2020 20% of all food and food products purchased by state agencies and state-owned facilities be produced in Illinois.  State-owned facilities include prisons and public universities.

A second goal of the law is that by 2020 10% of all food and food products purchased by entities that at least partly funded by state dollars be produced in Illinois.  This category includes public schools, child care facilities, and hospitals.

The legislation creates a Local Food Council that will help facilitate meeting these goals.

This seems like a reasonable approach that we should consider here in Iowa.  We in Iowa like to claim the title of “Food Capital of the World.”  However, estimates are that about 80% of the $8 billion worth of food we eat in Iowa comes from out of state.  Producing more of the food we eat right here in Iowa would be good for our economy, rural communities, health and environment.

A few days after an unregistered group distributed a flyer attacking former Governor Terry Branstad from the right, a YouTube has appeared portraying Branstad as just like Governor Chet Culver on fiscal matters:

The comparison is ridiculous, since Culver never kept two sets of books to conceal deficit spending. Also, contrary to the claim made in this video, Culver didn’t try to sell the Iowa Lottery.

Still, the YouTube is a preview of attacks Branstad will face if he enters the governor’s race. He probably would win the nomination anyway, but the question is whether he wants to get mired in this kind of fight. I don’t know whether all of these claims are true; for instance, I don’t recall Branstad trying to end federal deductibility, although that may have happened while I was living outside Iowa.

I take as a given that no rival candidate directly authorized the creation of the flyer or the YouTube. People usually try not to let this kind of hit piece be linked to a campaign. Supporters of other Republican candidates may have acted independently, though. They have an obvious interest in keeping Branstad out of the race. Bob Vander Plaats is the front-runner now, but his prospects drop sharply with Branstad in. Most if not all of the other candidates would have no hope of competing against Vander Plaats and Branstad at the same time.

Over at The Iowa Republican blog, Krusty Konservative sees visual and stylistic clues in the YouTube pointing to Victory Enterprises, a firm working for Christian Fong’s campaign. I have no idea whether Krusty’s right, but consultants working for Fong stand to lose a lot of money if Branstad forces Fong from the race several months before next June’s primary.

Share any thoughts or speculation about the attacks on Branstad or the Republican primary campaign in this thread.

LATE UPDATE: Krusty followed up with another piece explaining why he believes someone at Victory Enterprises produced this video.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman is ready to shine a light on the health insurance industry’s business practices, according to this piece by Bill Boyarsky at Truthdig:

Waxman has already begun by demanding that major insurance companies reveal how much they pay top executives and board members and, most important, the size of their profits from selling policies. […]

I asked Waxman whether he expected the insurance companies to reply to his letters. “Oh yes,” he said. “When we write letters, we expect to get answers.” And what was his purpose in seeking the information? At first, he was reluctant to discuss the investigation. Finally, he gave a guarded reply: that many folks perhaps take too benign a view of private insurance companies. […]

The letters from Waxman and his colleague, Bart Stupak, chairman of the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, went to every major insurance company, ranging from Aetna to Wellpoint. The lawmakers want to know the pay, stock options, perks, incentives, and retirement and other financial information of executives earning more than $500,000 a year. They are curious about the cost of promotional junkets. They are seeking disclosure of premiums, revenue, claims payments and sales expenses for health insurance policies. This includes sales to employers, individuals and the government. Interestingly, while insurance companies rail against the federal government, they earn money from participating in a number of federal programs, such as Medicare.

David Mizner has more on why this is important.

Speaking of insurance industry practices, Froma Harrop of the Providence Journal wrote a powerful column last week on the “death panel” her late husband faced from their insurance company, United Healthcare, after he was diagnosed with liver cancer.

A United Healthcare subsidiary owns the Lewin Group, which has been putting out so-called “non-partisan” research to discredit the idea of a public health insurance option.

Disappointing stuff from Lynn Campbell of IowaPolitics.com:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Christian Fong has refused to take down his statewide radio ad, despite complaints and threats of legal action by the Iowa Democratic Party.

“We have no intention to take down the ad,” Marlys Popma, Fong’s campaign manager, told IowaPolitics.com today. “We’re very confident that everything in the ad is completely accurate.”

Fong on Monday launched the 60-second ad called “Iowa Dream” that focuses on introducing himself and outlining his story for Iowa Republicans, but also says: “We have a state government that borrowed almost a billion dollars to pay its bills.” Popma said the $830 million I-JOBS program will actually cost the state about $1.4 billion by the time it’s paid off.

Campbell goes on to quote Iowa Democratic Party chair Michael Kiernan’s statement calling the ad “materially false and misleading.” Finally, Campbell quotes Popma as saying the Fong campaign hasn’t heard directly from the Iowa Democratic Party.

This is a perfect example of bogus “objective” journalism that offers readers nothing but “he said/she said.” If Campbell has spent even 10 seconds wondering whether the state of Iowa is borrowing a billion dollars to pay its bills, you’d never know it from her story.

Yet Fong’s claim can be disproved by minute or two of online research. The I-JOBS program is funding special infrastructure projects, not line items from the budget. If Iowa were borrowing money to meet ongoing spending commitments, the state would not have a AAA bond rating, and the I-JOBS bonds would not have a AA rating.  

For whatever reason, Campbell makes this story about Republican confidence and Democratic “complaints” instead of about the accuracy of Fong’s ad.

I recommend that the folks at IowaPolitics.com read this piece by Philip Meyer on “The Next Journalism’s Objective Reporting.” Excerpt:

True objectivity is based on method, not result. Instead of implying that there is an equal amount of weight to be accorded every side, the objective investigator makes an effort to evaluate the competing viewpoints. The methods of investigation keep the reporter from being misled by his or her own desires and prejudices.

I was asked by desmoinesdem at swing-state-project.com to crosspost here. I normally post there and at dailykos.com. PBI or Party Brand Index is a concept I have developed as a replacement for PVI.  PVI (Partisan Voting Index), which is measured by averaging the percentage of the vote from the last two presidential elections in each house district, and comparing it to the nation as a whole, is a useful shorthand for understanding the liberal v. conservative dynamics of a district. But PVI in my opinion it falls short in a number of areas. First it doesn't explain states like Arkansas or West Virginia. These states have districts who's PVIs indicates a Democrat shouldn't win, yet Democrats (outside of the presidency) win quite handily. Secondly why is this the case in Arkansas but not Oklahoma with similar PVI rated districts?

Lastly PVI can miss trends as it takes 4 years to readjust. The purpose of Party Brand Index is to give a better idea of how a candidate does not relative to how the presidential candidate did, but compared to how their generic PARTY should be expected to perform. I've tackled IN, NC, CO, VA, MO, OK, AR, now I will look at the swing states of Nevada and Iowa.

Highly recommended: the National Journal’s compilation of several dozen tributes to Ted Kennedy, as his current and former staffers and other elected officials remember him.

Ted Kennedy has died of brain cancer:

But while the White House eluded his grasp, the longtime Massachusetts senator was considered one of the most effective legislators of the past few decades. Kennedy, who became known as the “lion of the Senate,” played major roles in passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act and the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act, and was an outspoken liberal standard-bearer during a conservative-dominated era from the 1980s to the early 2000s. […]

Said Kennedy’s biographer, Adam Clymer: “He was probably best known for the ability to work with Republicans. The Republican Party raised hundreds of millions of dollars with direct appeal to protect the country from Ted Kennedy, but there was never a piece of legislation that he ever got passed without a major Republican ally.”

There’s much more detail about his life in the New York Times and Los Angeles Times obituaries. Norman Ornstein observed, “When you survey the impact of the Kennedys on American life and politics and policy, he will end up by far being the most significant.” Some may focus on his personal flaws, but he had a lot of demons to escape from, having had four of his older siblings die violently before his 40th birthday.

I appreciated Kennedy’s commitment to improving legal protections for so many disadvantaged people. I never met him, but I’ll always remember seeing him speak at a rally for John Kerry shortly before the 2004 caucuses. The Hoover High School gymnasium was packed, and Kennedy got the crowd going with humor and passion.

It’s sad that cancer prevented Kennedy from being more involved in the Senate health care deliberations this year. He would have been a voice for many of the reforms we need.

Even if Congress approves a health care bill, it will fall short of the universal coverage Kennedy advocated for most of his career. On the other hand, Kennedy famously regretted not reaching a health care compromise with President Richard Nixon in the early 70s. (Nixon was prepared to require employers to provide health insurance, while Kennedy wanted a single-payer type system.) While that compromise wouldn’t have helped everyone, we would have a lot fewer than 47 million uninsured Americans today if it had passed.

Massachusetts law requires a special election in the event of a U.S. Senate seat vacancy. Last month Kennedy asked Governor Deval Patrick and state legislators to amend the law to allow the governor to appoint a temporary replacement (who would not be able to compete in the special election) so that Massachusetts will not be lacking a vote when important legislation comes before the Senate this fall.

Share your thoughts and memories about Ted Kennedy in this thread.

UPDATE: I’m with Senator Tom Harkin: “We must now rededicate our efforts toward passing legislation to provide robust, quality health insurance coverage for all Americans.”

SECOND UPDATE: More reaction after the jump, including a video of Vice President Joe Biden.

The Congressional Democrats fighting for a strong health care reform bill need as much help as they can get, with the insurance industry increasingly confident that they will get the bill of their dreams: a mandate for all Americans to buy health insurance, with no public option to compete with private insurers that dominate most markets.

We should all agree on how stupid it would be to let insurance companies “reap a financial windfall” from reform, when so many of our current problems stem from those companies’ high overhead costs and bad-faith business practices. If cost containment is an important goal of health care reform, we’re not going to get there by requiring people to buy overpriced private insurance.

The political fallout would be just as disastrous. Like David Waldman says,

If I’m uninsured or poorly insured, and the answer coming out of Congress is that I now have to buy crappy insurance from some private company that has no plan to actually help me pay for my health care without raking me over the coals, then I’ve gone into this fight an ardent supporter of strong reform, and come out a teabagger.

Digby warned in this excellent post that selling out the Democratic base on health care could fuel a movement comparable to the one that delivered nearly 3 million votes for Ralph Nader in 2000. Glenn Greenwald added more thoughts on the political calculations here.

The alternative to this scenario is not complicated.

Cedar Rapids Gazette columnist Todd Dorman published his take on the first statewide radio ad from Republican Christian Fong. Dorman’s not buying into Fong’s promise to “end the use of taxpayer money to fund lobbyists.” He makes some excellent points:

For starters, I don’t think leaving the lobbying playing field to non-government interests only is smart. I’m not sure how the public interest is advanced by allowing, for example, a corporation to lobby for loosened pollution rules while barring state regulators from pushing the other way.

Second, lawmakers would lose a pretty important resource. I can’t tell you how many times I saw members of a legislative committee get stuck in the complex details of a piece of legislation before turning to the audience and finding a department lobbyist who swiftly cleared up the confusion. Walling off one branch of government from another is going to slow down a process that’s already painfully slow.

Third, it really doesn’t bother me that state departments pursue legislative agendas. It’s not OK for the attorney general to lobby for tougher criminal penalties? The Department of Public Health should be barred from advocating for pandemic preparedness funding?

I agree totally, and Fong should be prepared to refute Dorman’s points if he is a serious thinker about policy, as opposed to a candidate taking cheap shots.

My only problem with Dorman’s column is that he cites this Des Moines Register report as saying that “state departments spent $1.8 million on lobbying state lawmakers” during the past year. In fact, the Register arrived at that figure by including lobbying expenses of “state agencies, municipalities, county agencies and associations where member dues are paid by taxpayers, such as the Iowa League of Cities.”

Ask anyone who has spent time at the statehouse; the League of Cities and State Association of Counties are forces to be reckoned with. It’s not hard to see why, since a lot of bills considered by the legislature affect city and county governments. I wonder whether Fong really thinks the governor should ban cities and counties from making their voices heard with state legislators.

In related news, Fong still hasn’t corrected his ad’s demonstrably false statement about the I-JOBS bonding initiative. He knows how financial markets work, and it doesn’t reflect well on him that he would mislead voters by claiming the state of Iowa is borrowing money to pay our bills.

State Senator Jerry Behn of Boone is officially launching his gubernatorial campaign today, after appearing at numerous Republican events around the state this summer. Radio Iowa posted Behn’s news release here. It’s nothing you haven’t heard before: he wants to rein in “excessive spending” and let Iowans vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage (as if we subject minority rights to a majority vote in this country).

Behn also touts his experience as a farmer growing corn and soybeans: “Common Sense is an integral part of farming. You also learn firsthand lessons in freedom, individual responsibility and self reliance.” I’ll wager that Behn’s business model depends on getting subsidy checks from the federal government every year. Most small business owners have to do without those.

Getting back to the news of the day, I see no promising niche for Behn in the Republican field. Whether or not Terry Branstad decides to run for governor, Behn looks to me like he’s fishing to be someone’s running mate. He has nothing to lose by staying in the race, since he was just re-elected to represent Senate district 24 in 2008.

Speaking of gubernatorial candidates with no hope of getting the nomination, Senate minority leader Paul McKinley was a no-show at the Black Hawk County Republican dinner on Sunday. He is not even pretending to run a real campaign.

As for serious contenders, Bob Vander Plaats will officially launch his campaign on Labor Day. Christian Fong was the first candidate to go up on radio statewide. State Representatives Chris Rants and Rod Roberts are still in the exploratory phase but have actively campaigned this summer. Branstad has said he will decide by October whether to run for governor again.

UPDATE: What a joke. After claiming his main issue is balancing the budget, Behn tells Kathie Obradovich and Jason Clayworth of the Des Moines Register that he would have the goal of eliminating Iowa’s state income tax to increase Iowa’s population:

He looks to no-tax states like Texas, Nevada and Florida as models. (And notes that South Dakota also has no income tax.)

But, he said, he doesn’t have a plan for replacing the revenue needed to run the state.

Raise your hand if you want Iowa’s schools and other public services to sink to the levels found in those no-income-tax states. I didn’t think so.

Radio Iowa’s Kay Henderson comments,

Unfortunately, Behn forgot to mention his get-rid-of-state-income-taxes idea during his half-hour discussion with reporters from Radio Iowa and The Cedar Rapids Gazette. Nor did Behn bring that up during his interview with WHO-TV or during his interview with IowaPolitics.com.

Not ready for prime time.

The crowd applauded Sen Grassley for merely walking into the room in Pocahontas today. They were clearly his fans, and they filled a good part of the Expo Center on the fairgrounds.

The very first man railed against too much government using the mandated EXIT signs above all the doors as his example. Anybody too stupid to know the way out of the building would likely not be smart enough read the sign, he said. This drew another round of applause and laughter.

No guns were in evidence, but I imagine the four sheriff deputies may have had theirs. I wasn’t close enough to them to notice. One elderly voter who got the microphone stood right next to the Senator, accused Obama of “acting like a little Hitler, ” (more applause) and said he was ready to take his gun to Washington.

Senator Grassley did not rebuke the man for his threat or his characterization of Obama, but he tepidly said he did not ascribe any ulterior motive to Obama and said he agrees with Obama on some things. But he also told the man “you are right” to be concerned about Obama’s goals.

The man ended by asking if the government would bail him out if he went broke farming. Grassley said “No” and the crowd applauded again, apparently forgetting that Pocahontas county routinely drew many millions of dollars in annual farm subsidies under the last farm program.

Lots of people didn’t get called on as the hour ended. The news here was the large turnout and the partisanship of the group. Obama opponents were the biggest part of the crowd and the most vocal. Although MoveOn called or emailed its members urging their participation, they did not carry the day.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Christian Fong is introducing himself to Iowans with a 60-second radio ad (audio here). Like Fong’s campaign website and early media interviews, this ad focuses on restoring “the Iowa dream” his family has lived.

Fong reads the script himself, beginning with a few details about his father’s life. Fong says, “After tax cuts in ’61, the U.S. was booming. Nelson Fong, a Christian in Hong Kong, was drawn by the promise of freedom to the United States in ’63.” By the way, tax rates after those 1961 cuts were still substantially higher than today’s rates, which didn’t slow down the U.S. economy during the 1960s. But I digress.

About halfway through the ad, Fong shifts from his family’s story to how he sees the American dream slipping away. Echoing the false talking point we hear from other Iowa Republicans, Fong claims, “We have a state government that borrowed almost a billion dollars to pay its bills.” Of course, the I-JOBS bonding initiative was for infrastructure projects, not for ongoing government programs. Like national credit analysts and institutional investors, Fong should understand the difference between borrowing for capital investments and borrowing to pay bills.

Fong then promises that as governor, he would “end the use of taxpayer money to fund lobbyists and veto any budget that is not balanced.”  

The first point refers to a recent Des Moines Register report showing that  government (“state agencies, municipalities, county agencies and associations where member dues are paid by taxpayers”) spent approximately $1.8 million of at least $13.7 million paid to lobby the Iowa Legislature during the past year. A lot of that expense is for state employees who answer legislators’ questions about various proposals. Republicans would be happy to let business groups spend unlimited amounts lobbying the legislature, with no opportunity for state agencies to discuss the broader implications of industry wish lists. Sounds to me like a prescription for more giveaways like Iowa’s new nursing home law.

Fong obviously doesn’t want anyone to view him as the moderate in the GOP field. This ad ends with a female voice saying, “Paid for by Iowans for Christian Fong, conservative Republican for governor.”

UPDATE: Iowa Democratic Party chair Michael Kiernan called on Fong to take down this “materially false and misleading” ad. I’ve posted Kiernan’s statement after the jump.

The $3 billion “Cash for Clunkers” program officially ends today, having helped generate at least 625,000 new car sales. Representative Bruce Braley, a key advocate of the program, is holding an event this morning in Bettendorf with John McEleney, Chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association, and Gary Thomas, President of the Iowa Automobile Dealers Association.

Meanwhile, Energy Secretary Steven Chu has announced that $300 million in stimulus money will go toward cash incentives for consumers to buy energy-efficient home appliances:

Beginning late this fall, the program authorizes rebates of $50 to $200 for purchases of high-efficiency household appliances. The money is part of the broader economic stimulus bill passed earlier this year. Program details will vary by state, and the Energy Dept. has set a deadline of Oct. 15 for states to file formal applications. The Energy Dept. expects the bulk of the $300 million to be awarded by the end of November. (Unlike the clunkers auto program, consumers won’t have to trade in their old appliances.)

“These rebates will help families make the transition to more efficient appliances, making purchases that will directly stimulate the economy,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement announcing the plan. Only appliances covered by the Energy Star seal will qualify. In 2008, about 55% of newly produced major household appliances met those standards, which are set by the Energy Dept. and Environmental Protection Agency.

Replacing old appliances can significantly reduce a household’s energy use and utility bills, so this seems like a good use of stimulus money. However, some analysts are skeptical that the new program will be as successful as “Cash for Clunkers”:

“The cash-for-clunkers (program) had a discernible value proposition for the consumer, because he knows how much his (clunker) is worth,” says [Sam] Darkatsh, the Raymond James analyst. “With appliances, there is no trade-in. You can walk into Home Depot and get a great deal on a home appliance any time you want one. Why would it drum up sales now?” Laura Champine, an analyst with Cowen & Co., agrees. “I’m not sure if it will be as powerful as cash for clunkers because there is something compelling about that $4,500 discount,” she says. “Also, a new car is more fun than a new dishwasher. So I’m not sure if it will be as much of a driver, but any driver is welcome right now.”

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Senator Chuck Grassley already has two likely Democratic opponents (Bob Krause and Tom Fiegen), but rumors persist that a better-known Iowa Democrat is thinking seriously about this race.

I still don’t buy the rumors that Representative Bruce Braley will take on this challenge, even though Braley sharply criticized Grassley in a guest piece for the Huffington Post on Friday. With Grassley’s approval ratings still outside the danger zone for an incumbent, I would hate to see Braley give up a safe House seat and a good committee assignment to run in 2010. He is young enough to wait until either Grassley or Harkin retires.

Whether or not Braley intends to run for Senate next year, he could raise his profile and support by promising to work as hard to keep a strong public option in the health care reform bill as Grassley is working to keep one out. (Progressive activists have now raised nearly $400,000 for House Democrats who promise not to vote for any health care bill lacking a strong public option.) A joint statement on behalf of Braley’s Populist Caucus would do even more to bolster Braley’s reputation as a fighter for a strong health care reform bill.

Other names being floated on various blogs include former first lady Christie Vilsack, Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie, Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge, Attorney General Tom Miller, and Mike Blouin, a former member of Congress who headed the state Department of Economic Development when Tom Vilsack was governor. Blouin narrowly lost the 2006 gubernatorial primary to Chet Culver, so he has recent experience campaigning statewide. On several issues Blouin and I are as far apart as any two Democrats could be, but I thought displacedyankdem made a strong case for him:

Even if he’s not in the very highest tier of candidates (Vilsack, Miller, and Braley), he is:

a)several tiers higher than Grassley’s past 3 opponents

b)likely to automatically get at least 35% and likely 40% of the vote (somewhere between 7 and 12 points higher than the last 3)

c)a strong enough candidate to take advantage if there is a Macaca moment a la Jim Webb 2006

d)likely to tie down millions of dollars in GOP money

e)risk free in that he’s not giving up an office

f)just young enough to be on the edge of viability (maybe I’m making too much out of the seniority thing)

Since running against Grassley will be an uphill battle, I would like Democrats to nominate someone who doesn’t have to give up a current elected position.

On a related note, Grassley is still playing rope-a-dope with the White House, this morning backing down on his ridiculous comments about pulling the plug on grandma. I hope key people in the Obama administration finally understand that nothing is to be gained by seeking a compromise with Grassley. The Senate Finance Committee “gang of six” is taking two weeks off from negotiating, probably because delays help Republican efforts to defeat health care reform.

Share any thoughts about Grassley or the 2010 Senate race in this thread.

WHO reporter Dave Price posted a good scoop at the Price of Politics blog about a flyer attacking Terry Branstad, which appeared on some cars in Des Moines on Saturday. The flyer says “Paid for by Iowans For Truth and Honest Government,” but it reads like the case that supporters of Bob Vander Plaats would make against Branstad in the Republican gubernatorial primary. The distributors seem to have wanted publicity, because they put the flyers on at least one car in the WHO-TV parking lot.

The line about the “pro-infanticide Lieutenant Governor” refers to Joy Corning, who is pro-choice and has criticized activists who make the abortion issue a “litmus test” for Republican candidates.

Attacking Branstad for saying nice things about Mitt Romney may reflect the fact that Branstad’s former top aide, Doug Gross, was Romney’s Iowa chairman before the 2008 caucuses. However, it should be noted that one of Vander Plaats’ campaign co-chairs is State Representative Jodi Tymeson, who also supported Romney for president.

If Branstad gets back into politics, most of the Republican establishment will support him, but a significant number of rank-and-file Republicans may be swayed by the arguments made in this flyer. It would be ironic for Branstad’s main obstacle to be the religious conservatives, who carried him to victory in the 1982 and 1994 GOP primaries.

Iowa Democratic Party chair Michael Kiernan released a memo on Friday making the case against Branstad from a different perspective. I’ll have more to say on that in a future post.