2010 UPDATE: For early voting links and numbers related to this year’s election, click here.

I’ve been thinking that it’s time to update this piece from a few weeks ago.

Mr. desmoinesdem likes to vote on election day, but I usually vote several weeks before. That way I don’t have to worry if I’m sick, or my children are sick, on that Tuesday in November. Plus, if everyone in my family is well, voting early leaves my election day free for volunteering with the Iowa Democratic Party’s phone banks or canvassing teams.

Long lines aren’t typically a problem in my precinct, but early voting is also good for people who want to make sure they don’t have to wait long during the rush to vote before or after work on election day.

Voting early also enables the Obama campaign and Iowa Democratic Party to direct their GOTV efforts toward more unreliable voters than you. Once you have voted, you won’t receive any more phone calls reminding you to vote.

Click here to find your local field office, which you can contact to ask about how to vote before November 4 in your county.

The Obama campaign also has set up a voter information hotline, 877 – IA08VOTE, for Iowans to call for information on early voting.

Note: My understanding is that the absentee ballots and other early votes cast will be counted during the day on election day and will be the first returns released by the Secretary of State’s office after the polls close. So don’t worry about your vote not getting counted.

Who’s voting early, and who prefers the old ritual of voting on election day?

Two websites are keeping comprehensive lists of newspaper endorsements for Barack Obama and John McCain:

Editor and Publisher:

The Obama-Biden ticket maintains its strong lead in the race for daily newspaper endorsements, by 105 to 33, a better than 3-1 margin, […]

In a real shocker, two solid Bush papers in 2004, the Houston Chronicle and Austin American-Statesman, also came out for Obama today. So did the more traditionally Democratic the News & Obsever in Raleigh and the Orlando Sentinel, both in key battleground states.

Obama’s lopsided margin, including most of the major papers that have decided so far, is in stark contrast to John Kerry barely edging George W. Bush in endorsements in 2004 by 213 to 205.

Cheers to the Mason City Globe-Gazette, one of more than two dozen newspapers that endorsed Obama despite backing Bush four years ago.

DemConWatch’s newspaper endorsement list is particularly helpful because they indicate which party the newspaper favored in 2004, and they have a separate column listing all the newspapers in the top 100 by circulation that have not yet endorsed a presidential candidate.

Many newspapers have cited McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as a reason for endorsing Obama. That includes Republican papers like the Houston Chronicle and the Chicago Tribune, which is endorsing a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time in 161 years.

I wouldn’t exaggerate the importance of newspaper endorsements, but this trend underscores how many Republicans have lost confidence in the McCain/Palin ticket.

I was shocked when an old family friend told me over the weekend that he’d voted for Obama. He caucused for McCain in January, and he doesn’t think Obama will do a very good job, but he didn’t want to take the chance of Palin ever becoming president.

It’s never too early to start preparing for the next election. In September, Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer headlined Tom Harkin’s Steak Fry.

Next month Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

will keynote a fundraising dinner for the Iowa Family Policy Center’s “Celebrating the Family” banquet, a high-profile Christian conservative event in a state pivotal in presidential races.

The governor’s spokeswoman, Melissa Sellers, confirmed that Jindal will attend the event November 22 and also will make a stop in the Cedar Rapids area to see some of the recent flooding damage there.

I’m keeping my eye out for reports like this, but if you hear about any Iowa visits planned by likely presidential candidates in 2012 or 2016, please post a diary here or e-mail me (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

You may remember Barney Smith, a midwesterner who was laid off by RCA some time ago, and he spoke at the Democratic National Convention in August.   Today, the Obama camp released an ad about Barney Smith. 

 The concept ties McCain to tax breaks to companies which outsource jobs and will continue to do so if McCain is elected president.  But the tag line is the most memorable: Obama will put Barney Smith before Smith Barney.  

Mainstreet before Wall Street. 

No doubt Barney Smith is this guy's real name, and he was vetted.

This is a devastating blow to John McCain’s candidacy. Watch Colin Powell explain his reasoning at length here:

He is impressed by Obama’s style and substance, by Obama’s choice of running mate, and by the way Obama has handled himself during the economic crisis. He admires McCain but is disturbed by the choice of Sarah Palin (whom Powell does not consider ready to be president) and the way McCain and senior Republicans have tried to attack Obama this fall.

Powell is not my favorite person, but the media love him, and millions of Americans admire him. I’d been hearing rumors for months that Powell might endorse Obama, but I was skeptical.

Also in the news this weekend, Obama’s campaign announced that they raised $150 million in September, and Obama drew crowds of 100,000 in St. Louis and 75,000 in Kansas City yesterday.

Time is running out for McCain. I don’t see how he changes the dynamic.

UPDATE: So I took the kids to “sample Sunday” at Picket Fence Creamery in Woodward today, and there was a car parked in the lot with a bumper sticker I’d never seen. It asked, “Who will be your commander in chief?” On the left side, there was a head shot of McCain with an American flag backdrop, and on the right was that photo of Obama in Muslim garb when he visited Africa. A woman was sitting in the car talking to some people standing next to it. As I walked by, I said, “Colin Powell doesn’t agree with your bumper sticker.”

They looked confused, so I said, “Colin Powell said this morning that he’s voting for Obama. I guess he knows what it takes to be commander in chief.”

That felt good.

Last night two women who belong to the house of worship I attend made a lifetime commitment to each other in front of about 200 friends, relatives and fellow congregants.

It was a moving ceremony, followed by a joyous reception.

Their loving bond is no threat to anyone’s marriage.

In lieu of gifts, they asked well-wishers to make a donation to any of several charitable causes. They also set up a “wedding registry” at Equality California for the “No on Prop. 8” campaign. Proposition 8 seeks to ban gay marriage in California.

If marriage equality is important to you, consider donating to Equality California. I also encourage you to get involved with One Iowa, the state’s largest LGBT advocacy group.

UPDATE: The Obama campaign announced on October 20 that they are canceling this event so that Obama can visit his grandmother, who is seriously ill.

I was surprised to read in the Des Moines Register tonight that Barack Obama plans to hold a public rally in the Des Moines area this Thursday, October 23.

Frankly, I think he ought to be spending his time in other states, in light of the polling average that has him leading John McCain by 11 points in Iowa. Also, note these statistics from the Register article:

Obama has 120 paid staff working out of 50 offices throughout the state. Meanwhile, McCain has about a quarter the staff and 16 offices.

Obama’s campaign also reports having 6,000 volunteers, including neighborhood-level campaign leaders in roughly 90 percent of Iowa’s more than 1,700 precincts.

I wonder who won last month’s “Iowa Call Challenge” for a chance to meet Obama in person on his next visit.

On Wednesday, I hurried out of school at lunch to go see John Kerry at the Iowa Veterans Home. Kerry was in Iowa today campaigning for Barack Obama. He made stops in Waterloo, Marshalltown, Ames, Waukee, and Des Moines.

The event was scheduled to start at 11;30, but I couldn't leave school until 11:40. Knowing there was a good chance that the event would start a few minutes behind schedule, I thought I'd get to see a good portion of it. However, the event must have started on time because I only caught the last few questions.

Kerry was asked by a veteran about the possibility of another economic stimulus check. The person said many residents of the Iowa Veterans Home were not eligible for a stimulus check and if they give out another one if something could be done. Kerry said that the government needs to focus on creating jobs and not on writing more checks.

Kerry was then asked by a man, who is supporting Obama and is Catholic, about the abortion issue.

As I was walking out, there were veterans registering to vote and filling out requests for absentee ballots. I didn't get a head count of how many people were there, but you could feel the excitement for the upcoming election in the room.

Saturday, October 18, Barack Obama’s campaign will have canvassers knocking on doors in all 99 Iowa counties. The details of the canvasses in Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Des Moines, Dubuque, Mason City, Ottumwa, Sioux City and Waterloo are after the jump.

Click here for details about many of the other canvasses going on around the state today.

Click here to find your local field office, which you can contact to ask about other volunteer opportunities.

The Obama campaign also has set up a voter information hotline, 877 – IA08VOTE, for Iowans to call to get information on how they can vote.

There is more information about early voting at http://iowa.barackobama.com.  

Traffic at Bleeding Heartland has increased in the last few months with the growing interest in the upcoming elections. For the benefit of new users, I want to restate some guidelines for this community.

Anonymity is respected at Bleeding Heartland, and people are free to write under a username of their choosing.

Exposing or threatening to expose the real name or other identifying details of any Bleeding Heartland user will not be tolerated.  The admin will delete accounts and posts by anyone who breaks this rule.

Each person who writes here should stick to one username for Bleeding Heartland. Creating “sock puppets” will lead to banning.

It’s fine to write under one screen name at Bleeding Heartland while continuing to use different names at other blogs.

It’s also ok to abandon one username and choose a new name, as long as you are consistent in using the new identity here.

While no one has to reveal any personal details here, I ask people not to make false statements about themselves either. You’re free to never mention your gender, age or place of residence at Bleeding Heartland, but if you say you are a thirty-something mom of two living in Windsor Heights, you should be a thirty-something mom of two living in Windsor Heights.

I also want to repost some guidelines for rating other people’s comments at this blog:

You don’t have to rate comments (my personal style is to be sparing in handing out ratings), but if you do, you can give five possible ratings.

“4” is for excellent. That means the comment has valuable insight, original information or analysis, and makes a strong contribution to dialogue at Bleeding Heartland.

“3” is for good. You might use this if you largely agree with someone’s comment, but not with every point he or she makes.

“2” is for marginal. You might use this if you strongly disagree with the content of someone’s comment. Also, a 2 rating could be a “shot across the bow” to warn someone that the line of argument in the comment didn’t do much to advance dialogue here, or comes close to crossing a line.

“1” is for unproductive. If you not only strongly disagree with a comment, but feel that it detracts from the atmosphere here (for instance, because it is disrespectful or contains ad hominem attacks), you might give it a 1.

“0” is for troll. If more than one user gives a comment a zero, it will be hidden so that some Bleeding Heartland readers cannot see it.

Never use a zero rating to express disagreement with the argument someone is making. That is ratings abuse, and if you do it repeatedly, Bleeding Heartland administrators will either take away your ability to rate comments or potentially ban you from posting here.

A zero rating should be reserved for extreme circumstances, when the comment deserves to be hidden. For instance, if someone is impersonating someone else by choosing a different real person’s name as a screen name (for instance, if I signed up as “Leonard Boswell” and posted ridiculous comments pretending to come from him).

Comments that use racist or otherwise bigoted language also would merit a zero.

Trying to expose the real names of Bleeding Heartland users who choose to write under screen names will not be tolerated either.

Slanderous, ad hominem attacks could get a zero rating too, but be careful not to accuse other posters of slander just because you disagree with their point of view or interpretation of events.

cross-posted at La Vida Locavore

I learned today from the Public News Service that Jon Bailey of the Center for Rural Affairs

has done an analysis of the 2008 Farm Bill, and found 233 times more spending on commodity subsidies than on rural development.

“Initiatives that would help start businesses, create jobs, make communities attractive places for people to relocate to, were left out of the farm bill.”

In contrast, Bailey notes, the Farm Bill allocates $35 billion for commodity subsidies, which makes the amount for revitalizing rural areas seem paltry.

“There are only three programs totaling $150 million for rural development in the final Farm Bill. Rural development got the very short end of the stick.”

Bailey noted that the 2002 Farm Bill included “more than $1 billion in mandatory spending for rural development programs.”

If you go to this page at the Center for Rural Affairs, you can find a link to a pdf version of the full report.

As much as I admire Senator Tom Harkin, I was very disappointed by how the Farm Bill (officially known as the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) turned out. I have no idea what can be done to get Congress to redirect government funding toward sustainable farming practices and programs that improve the quality of life in rural areas.

Meanwhile, Susan Heathcote, the water program director of the Iowa Environmental Council and a member of the state Environmental Protection Commission, wrote a good guest editorial for the Des Moines Register about the need for better monitoring of drinking-water sources.

She mentioned two recent incidents of conventional farming polluting drinking water in the Des Moines area. Farms 80 miles upstream contributed to high ammonia levels found in the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers last spring, and a cyanobacteria “algae bloom” prompted the Des Moines Water Works to stop drawing from the Raccoon River in August.

cross posted at IowaVoters.org 

With all the scare stories now arising about the upcoming election, it's time to remind ourselves that Iowa looks pretty good. We won't have (shouldn't have) long lines to vote on election day. We won't have any touchscreens to go awry. We won't have many registration problems. Let's review our enviable situation.

No Touchscreens. This is Iowa's signature accomplishment. We owe a big debt to Secretary of State Mauro who traded in the touchscreens as his first major step in office. Now all of us get to vote on paper. Polling places can arrange as many ballot marking booths as they need to prevent lines of voters. No votes will be lost to the dastardly touchscreen gadgets. It's because of this victory that this blog has been so quiet lately. No sense in pointing out the state's shortcomings when such a major change has just been engineered.

No Registration Problems. Iowans can register until the end of next week. If they miss that date, they get a second chance on election day. This means hardly any provisional ballots will be needed. Everyone with a good ID card should be able to vote without any prior preparation. You can check your registration right now at this website.

The Brennan Center (with help from Sean Flaherty of Iowan for Voting Integrity) has released a major report on the status of election readiness. Iowa is one of eight states given credit for “best practices” in ballot accounting and reconciliation. See the third map.

On the other hand, we fall into the black space on the bottom map regarding audits of the machine readout. That's Mauro's next challenge. Someone needs to hand count some ballots after the polls close to see that the machines got it right in their hi-speed readings. Haste makes waste! Slow down and double check the damned things!

That challenge is for the government to face next legislative session. If we get good audits we can join the list of only six states that get shaded green on the top map (Alaska, Oregon, California, North Carolina, and our neighbors Missouri and Minnesota).

For now the voters should see a welcoming environment at the polls. Any snafus will be local–not the fault of state law. Take advantage of our enviable situation by voting.

Steve King keeps adding to the multitude of reasons to elect Rob Hubler to represent Iowa’s fifth district in Congress. He is running a misleading television ad in the Sioux City market:

Friday, October 17, 2008                  

         COUNCIL BLUFFS – Rob Hubler, Democratic candidate for Congress in Iowa’s 5th district, today called on Rep. Steve King to pull his new television ad in which he falsely claims credit for “working with others” to widen Highway 20 from two lanes to four lanes.

         Following an announcement by the Iowa Department of Transportation on Tuesday that $48 million had been allocated for 11.7 miles of four-laning Highway 20, King began running a television commercial claiming credit for the funding.  All of the funding is from a special fund recently approved by the Iowa legislature and none of the funding is from federal sources.

         “Steve King taking credit for funding Highway 20 improvements would be like me taking credit for the sun coming up this morning,” said Hubler.  “Our state legislators and the Iowa Department of Transportation deserve credit for allocating the funding for Highway 20, which is long overdue,” he said.  “King had nothing to do with approving money for highway improvements but, three weeks before an election, he is desperate to show some accomplishments in Congress, by taking credit where it is not due.”

         State Sen. Steve Warnstadt of Sioux City, who has fought for funding in the Iowa legislature, said today that the legislature, “rather than wait for the promises of federal politicians to be fulfilled, worked in a bipartisan manner to not only create the funding for TIME-21, but ensured that projects like four-laning Highway 20 would be top priority for new funding.”

         “I’m pleased that the Iowa Transportation Commission did not wait for federal funds, and is using the resources provided to them by the legislature for critical projects like Highway 20,” said Sen. Warnstadt.

         In his television ad, that began running this week, King says:  “Six years ago I made a commitment to you that I would pull out all the stops to build four-lane Highway 20.  Today with the commission’s announcement, I can tell you that 46 more miles will be built within five years.  My number one transportation priority was a promise, now it’s a plan, soon it will be a reality.  We work together and we get things done.”

         In a press release issued the same day, King again took credit for the Highway 20 improvement project.  “Steve King had absolutely nothing to do with any of that funding and is shamelessly trying to take credit for it,” said Hubler.  “I suppose this is what you do when you’ve spent six years in Congress and have only a resolution encouraging people to celebrate Christmas to show for it,” he added.

         Hubler pointed out that King is unable to get anything done to help his district because he is not respected by other members of Congress, even those in his own party.  “By contrast, Rep. Leonard Boswell of Iowa has a program for Highway 34 in which he gets 20 miles paved every year,” he said.

         Hubler said that he will work with the rest of the Iowa delegation to make sure Iowa gets help with maintaining our highways and bridges.  “I will sponsor and fight for legislation to fund at least ten miles of Highway 20 widening each year until it is completed,” he said.  “If Steve King had done this, we would have 60 miles completed during his three terms in Congress.”

This press release from the Iowa Department of Transportation confirms the above comments by Hubler and State Senator Steve Warnstadt. This project is funded by the state, not by any federal appropriation.

Iowa Guy calls out the television ad as one of King’s “lies.” Here is a rough transcript that someone in the fifth district sent to me (if anyone has an official script, please send me a copy). Judge for yourself:

King: I’m Steve King. I approve this message. Six years ago I made a commitment to you that I would pull out all of the stops to build 4 lane Highway 20. Today with the commission’s announcement, I can tell you that 46 more miles will be built within five years. My number one transportation priority was a promise, now it’s a plan, soon it will be a reality. We work together and we get things done.

Voice Over: “Steve King for Congress”

King’s ad creates a false impression. Note how he refers to “the commission” without making clear that he’s talking about the Iowa Transportation Commission’s announcement regarding Highway 20. He talks about how his “promise” is now a “plan” that will soon be a “reality,” without specifying what he did to make that plan a reality (because he played no role).

I read in one of my parenting books that lying can be a form of wish fulfillment. If I had achieved as little for constituents as King has, I’d probably wish I could take credit for a popular highway project too.

Speaking of King’s record, you may recall this article the Sioux City Journal published over the summer, asking “How effective is Steve King?” (Answer: not very.) In the article, King described a “key moment” for him:

King said the extended 2007 funding debate for reauthorization of the federal State Children’s Health Insurance Program was a key moment. The measure was initially written for an increase of $35 billion, but was scaled back before being signed by President Bush in December.

King took to the House floor last fall with a sign that said the SCHIP acronym should instead stand for “Socialized Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents.”

“I do believe if you took me out of the equation, there would have been a different (funding) result,” King said.

I have a close friend (self-employed) whose family was getting health coverage through her husband’s job. He was just laid off this month. Fortunately, their kids are eligible to be added to HAWK-I (that’s the Iowa version of SCHIP) as of November 1.

Plenty of children would be going without health insurance if not for HAWK-I, and in this economy, demand for the program will probably rise significantly.

Isn’t it great that King fought to scale back the funding?

Another recent “achievement” for King was his proposal to create a commission to study the current financial crisis. Hubler had some choice words about that idea, and I’ve put his full statement after the jump. Some excerpts:

       “For six years, Steve King has supported an administration that has refused to accept responsibility or to hold anyone accountable for policies that have devastated the middle class, provided tax breaks to big oil companies, mismanaged an unnecessary war, and now caused the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression,” said Hubler.  “We don’t need to spend millions of dollars on a commission that will take months to find out what we already know; when there are no rules, and no regulators, markets do not regulate themselves.”

       “King opposed common-sense regulations designed to protect investors and consumers as his Republican-led Congress gave the Bush administration the authority to dismantle rules, allowing greedy Wall Street speculators and unscrupulous lenders free rein to engage in subprime lending with no oversight from Congress,” Hubler continued.  “Yet, instead of accepting responsibility for his part in creating this mess, King has tried to blame middle class borrowers for the collapse of the housing market,” said Hubler, referring to comments King made Saturday at a town hall meeting in Onawa.

Hubler is a strong Democrat as well as a strong candidate, which is why Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s Progressive Patriots Fund is supporting him.

Hubler can win this race if he is able to get his message to voters. He’s already been up on the radio with at least one ad, featuring former Congressman Berkley Bedell. The Hubler campaign has also produced this voter guide (pdf file) to mail district-wide. To reach more voters through direct mail and broadcast media, the campaign needs your help. Please donate today.

We have a great opportunity to take advantage of the coming Democratic wave. This post at Swing State Project notes that seats once thought safe for Republicans are becoming competitive across the country. The author names IA-05 (as well as IA-04) among the “Republican seats at severe risk of being lost or swept away in the ensuing tide.”

The Republican Party is now spending money on behalf of incumbents in some districts comparable to western Iowa in terms of partisan makeup. This recent story from Politico notes:

GOP Reps. John B. Shadegg of Arizona, Lee Terry of Nebraska, Henry Brown Jr. of South Carolina and Dan Lungren of California are all fighting for their political lives, a reversal of fortunes that has caught even the most astute campaign observers by surprise.

Markos commented on the Politico piece,

Shadegg’s AZ-03 is R+5.9.

Terry’s NE-02 is R+9.0.

Brown’s SC-01 is R+9.6

Lungren’s CA-03 is R+6.7.

Iowa’s fifth district has a partisan voting index of R+8. As I’ve written before, ten House Democrats already represent districts at least as Republican. This election will increase that number. Let’s make IA-05 one of them.

King’s third-quarter FEC filing showed a financial advantage over Hubler, but hardly an intimidating war chest. His cash on hand may not even be sufficient to run television ads across the district for the remainder of the campaign. He certainly won’t have a turnout operation to rival what Barack Obama’s campaign and the Iowa Democratic Party have going in western Iowa.

It only takes a minute to donate to Hubler’s campaign, giving him the resources to spread his message in the final weeks. Please take the time to help send a good man to Congress.

I would like to hear more about how the Iowa House and Senate candidates are campaigning around the state.

I live in House district 59, which is a targeted district for both parties. Republican Dan Clute has retired, and Windsor Heights Mayor Jerry Sullivan is facing Chris Hagenow, a Republican attorney.

I don’t watch much television, but I’ve heard that Hagenow has been on the air for a few weeks. His first spot was apparently positive about his Iowa roots and how he wants to make Iowa a good place for his young son Owen. More recently, I think he’s been running an ad attacking Sullivan on taxes. If you’ve seen either of these tv ads, please post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

I’ve received seven direct-mail pieces about this race, all paid for by the Iowa Democratic Party. Five were positive: one about how Sullivan has done a good job as mayor of Windsor Heights, one about his biography and how he’s “always been part of the fabric of our community,” two on how he supports more investment in renewable energy as an economic engine that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and one on how he wants to do more to protect children from sex predators (don’t we all!).

Just this week I’ve received two negative mailings  also paid for by the Iowa Democratic Party, about how we can’t trust Hagenow on Social Security. One states that Hagenow wants to replace Social Security with a “voluntary system in which no senior receives the guaranteed benefit they worked a lifetime for.” These mailings contain a footnote to the Polk County Republican platform:

http://polkgoptemp.iowalink.co… Plank 7.4

Unfortunately, the link doesn’t take you directly to the platform. I searched for it on the Polk County Republican site and found this:

http://polkgoptemp.iowalink.co…

Plank 7.4 does indeed state

7.4. We call for the replacement of the current Social Security System with a new private and voluntary retirement investment program.

I live in Windsor Heights, which is obviously a stronghold for Sullivan, and I see lots of his yard signs (including in some Republican households). I don’t know who is winning the yard sign war in the Clive and West Des Moines parts of the district.

If you live in a contested House or Senate district, please post a comment or send me an e-mail about what you are seeing and hearing from the candidates.

If you receive any robocalls or push-polls against your Democratic candidate, please take detailed notes and post a diary or send me an e-mail about it.

Here are some more tips about what to do if you get push-polled.

Health reform is moving back to the top of the political agenda. Over the last fifteen years, the biggest problems in U.S. health care—the dwindling reach and generosity of private coverage, the rapid escalation of costs, the uneven quality of care—have all grown substantially worse. Now, we may well finally have a true opportunity to address these problems. What are the big issues at stake? What are the options for reform? And what are the prospects for real change after decades of political defeat?

These are the questions taken up in Health At Risk: America’s Ailing Health System–And How to Heal It, a book I recently put together that features the commentary of some of the nation’s leading experts on health care (plus yours truly).

When John McCain won the Florida primary, putting him well on the way to sealing the Republican nomination, I got a sinking feeling in my stomach. I had been hoping the GOP would nominate Mitt Romney. Not only did many religious conservatives deeply distrust Romney, I felt he would be easy to expose as a phony say-anything-to-win kind of politician. In contrast, McCain was a media darling with a “maverick” image, even though he also flip-flopped on many issues while seeking the presidency.

Many factors favored the Democrats this year, in particular George W. Bush’s rock-bottom approval ratings and the lopsided right direction/wrong track numbers every pollster has found. But it seemed to me in February that the Republicans had nominated their strongest general-election candidate, while our two remaining primary contenders seemed to me to have big hurdles to overcome in the general.

When McCain frittered away the spring and early summer, reshuffling his campaign staff several times, I started to realize he was a weaker candidate than I’d previously believed. Watching McCain’s excrutiatingly long non-answer on whether insurance companies that cover Viagra should also cover birth control pills, I remember thinking that Romney would never have fumbled that question so badly. He would have had a slick reply along safe Republican lines, such as, “I don’t think the government should be in the business of telling private insurers what to cover.”

After Obama picked Joe Biden as a running mate, Republican talking heads were all over the lack of executive experience on the Democratic ticket. Of course McCain doesn’t have any either, and his running mate was mayor of a small town (where the city manager did most of the work) and then a governor who abused her power less than halfway through her first term. Romney had a legitimate claim to executive experience, having run a large company and then a state government. Would he have made as dumb a VP pick as McCain did? I doubt it.

Each time McCain loses a debate to Obama, I’ve thought that Romney would have done better on the stage. Sure, he was a big phony, but he carried himself with more confidence and spoke with more authority in his voice. Perhaps Obama would have won all the post-debate polls anyway, but I think Romney would have made it closer.

I also think Romney would have been a stronger voice for Republicans on economic policy in light of this fall’s meltdown in the banking sector and stock market. Here’s the Republican National Committee’s latest ad, pounding Obama on his inexperience in connection with the current financial crisis:

Obama’s relative inexperience is a vulnerability, but he has handled himself well this fall and done a good job answering the economic questions in all three debates. McCain has seemed erratic by comparison. Romney would have been able to play his “I know the business sector” card, and I doubt he would have tried to get the first debate delayed, which looked like an odd stunt from McCain.

Along the same lines, watch this brand-new ad from McCain and try to tell me Romney wouldn’t have been more credible delivering this message:

Romney would have looked more confident and sounded more polished. Also, Romney’s biography would make it easier to believe he had a plan to restore people’s savings, jobs and financial security.

Most important, Romney has not been in Congress for the last eight years, voting with President Bush more than 90 percent of the time. McCain has, which is the focus of this brand-new ad from Obama:

By the way, the Service Employees International Union put together a very clever ad on the theme of McCain being the same as Bush (or worse).

I acknowledge that Romney probably would have lost the general election. The economic indicators and trends in voter registration point to a Democratic wave. Romney’s past history of supporting abortion rights and even gay rights would have created major problems with part of the Republican base. Also, perhaps there would have been great resistance to electing a Mormon president. (For what it’s worth, I think Romney would be the GOP nominee if not for his religion.)

But McCain is just not running a good campaign, and the economic issues, where McCain is weak, have more salience now than the military and security issues that are allegedly McCain’s strengths. It’s hard for me to believe that Romney would have done worse against Obama.

What do you think?

UPDATE: The emergence of “Joe the Plumber” strengthens my case. McCain mentioned him about 20 times during last night’s debate, apparently without sufficient vetting. It turns out that Joe the Plumber is not a licensed plumber, owes back taxes, and is a registered Republican (not an independent). Oh yeah, and he’s also related to Charles Keating’s son-in-law (as in “Keating Five” Charles Keating).

Would the Romney campaign have staked so much on “Joe the Plumber” without doing due diligence? I don’t think so.

Barack Obama has a big psychological edge going into his final debate with John McCain. He leads McCain in all of the recent nationwide polls and in most of the key swing state polls, giving him a big lead in the projected electoral vote. McCain desperately needs to have the debate of his life and hope that Obama makes a big mistake.

Deep pessimism appears to have set in among the Republican political and pundit class, as you will learn if you read this Daily Kos diary: GOP Rats Deserting the USS McCain in Titanic Proportions. It’s chock full of quotes from angry or dejected Republicans.

Another piece that’s gotten a lot of traction today is this e-mail Ben Smith received from a demoralized Republican operative. This guy convened a focus group to test a hard-hitting ad linking Obama to terrorists among other things. The group believed his ad but are planning to vote for Obama anyway. Even though they think he’ll be a bad president. Even a woman who thinks Obama himself was in the Weathermen is planning to vote for him because of the health care issue. You really should click over to read this post.

McCain does have one thing going for him: he’s got a long relationship with Bob Schieffer of CBS, who is moderating tonight’s debate.

I probably won’t watch the debate live, but please share your comments in this thread. I will weigh in later when I’ve had a chance to listen.

I leave you with Obama’s latest tv ad, a good positive spot about education:

UPDATE: I caught the beginning of the debate, but then fell asleep while putting my kids to bed. Maybe I can catch the rerun on C-SPAN at some point. McCain seemed to be doing ok while I was watching, but apparently it didn’t go over well when he brought up William Ayers later in the debate. All the focus groups and snap polls gave the debate to Obama.

Note to aspiring politicians: No matter what your position is on when abortion should be legal (if ever), it’s a bad idea to use your fingers to make air quotes while saying “the health of the mother.”

Also, it’s best to avoid letting yourself be photographed or videotaped looking like this or like this. Not presidential.

Here’s a good summary of the post-debate focus group and polling data.

Congressional candidates’ third-quarter campaign finance reports were due today (October 15), so I went over to the Federal Election Commission site to see how things stand.

For some reason, I was unable to find reports for Senator Tom Harkin or his opponent, Christopher Reed. I will cover their FEC filings in a separate post when data become available. UPDATE: The National Journal’s Hotline blog published the basic information from all Senate candidates’ FEC filings.

Tom Harkin had total receipts of $635,915 during 3Q, spent $495,136, and had $3,956,998 cash on hand as of September 30.

Christopher Reed had total receipts of $34,956 during 3Q, spent $13,156, and had $22,092 cash on hand left.

All of the incumbents have large cash-on-hand advantages over their opponents going into the final stretch of the campaign.

Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) has given generously to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: $25,000 in July and another $50,000 at the end of August.

I could not find any donations from Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) to the DCCC. I hope someone from his staff will correct me if I am wrong. He certainly can afford to donate to the DCCC, running in a D+7 district in what looks like a very strong year for Iowa Democrats. On the other hand, the DCCC did nothing to help him two years ago when he was running against Jim Leach, so maybe he is less inclined to support the committee’s efforts.

I also could not find any record of donations from Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03) to the DCCC. Again, I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong. But if this is correct, it’s a disgrace for Boswell. The DCCC has spent heavily on Boswell’s behalf in several previous election cycles. The least he could do would be to help them support other Democratic candidates.

Iowa’s two Democratic challengers had very strong fundraising quarters. Becky Greenwald out-raised Tom Latham during the reporting period, which is phenomenal. However, she spent more than she raised, leaving her with relatively little cash on hand. The DCCC has added her to its Red to Blue list, so she presumably will be getting some help from them as well as from EMILY’s list, which endorsed her last month. She will need that help in order to stay on tv for the remainder of the campaign.

Considering that the fifth district is not widely acknowledged to be up for grabs, Rob Hubler’s haul for the quarter is impressive. No wonder the DCCC put him on the Emerging Races list. He went up on the radio last week and presumably will be able to stay on the radio for the duration of the campaign. It’s not clear whether he will have enough money for tv ads before election day. Steve King just went up on tv today and only went up on the radio a day or two earlier. I’m surprised King waited so long. Latham has been advertising heavily on television for the past few weeks and put up his first radio ad during the summer.

Here is the basic information from the candidates’ FEC filings. Click the links to access the full reports.

IA-01

Bruce Braley: $184,854.12 raised during 3Q, $107,099.90 spent, $402,586.60 cash on hand

Dave Hartsuch: $25,163.00 raised during 3Q, $30,447.28 spent, $7,391.01 cash on hand

IA-02

Dave Loebsack: $110,442.10 raised during 3Q, $116,561.03 spent, $456,656.96 cash on hand

Mariannette Miller-Meeks has not yet filed her report; I will update with that when available. Her report for the second quarter is here. UPDATE: She reported $108,599.26 raised during 3Q, $61,944.50 spent, $83,274.27 cash on hand

IA-03

Leonard Boswell: $133,045.34 raised during 3Q, $198,211.79 spent, $325,757.93 cash on hand

Kim Schmett: $56,294.35 raised during 3Q, $61,306.22 spent, $23,537.30 cash on hand

Note: According to his 3Q filing, Ed Fallon has paid off most of his debt from the third district primary against Boswell.

IA-04

Becky Greenwald: $308,452.01 raised during 3Q, $354,422.07 spent, $24,476.99 cash on hand

Tom Latham: $290,815.32 raised during 3Q, $269,858.03 spent, $774,671.45 cash on hand

IA-05

Rob Hubler: $95,235.42 raised during 3Q, $56,168.81 spent, $64,654.06 cash on hand

Steve King: $191,689.27 raised during 3Q, $91,993.28 spent, $351,239.55 cash on hand

Congressman Bruce Braley has been trying for months to find out how much the May 12 immigration raid in Postville cost the government. Today his office released this statement:

Braley Gets Answers from ICE on Cost of Postville Raid, Receives Full Accounting of Initial Costs

Washington,  DC -In response to his formal request, Rep. Bruce Braley (D, Iowa) received a full accounting of the initial costs incurred by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the May 12, 2008 raid at the Agriprocessors Plant in Postville, Iowa.  Braley has sent repeated letters to ICE requesting a full accounting of the costs to taxpayers associated with the raid at the Agriprocessors plant in  Postville , Iowa .

“It’s important that my constituents in  Iowa and all  U.S. taxpayers know how their tax dollars are being spent,” Braley said.  “I’m glad that ICE has begun to share information with taxpayers, so they can see for themselves how their tax dollars are being used to enforce our immigration laws.  I’ll continue pushing to ensure that taxpayers know how every dollar is being spent.”

The costs associated with ICE’s initial enforcement action are below.  The official document from ICE is attached to this message.

I’m not able to get that chart properly formatted, but here’s how the costs of “Operation Cedar Valley Junction” break down.

The Office of Investigation costs (which relate to the initial enforcement action) are $2,803,265. Line items:

$1,578,004 for Temporary Duty Assignment Cost for 750 ICE Office of Investigations Personnel

$60,117 for Transportation of Equipment, etc.

$268,483 for Lease of Cattle Congress Facility and Modspace Trailers

$744,747 for Leased Services (Security Work Authorization with Federal Protective Service, electrician)

$65,389 for Supplies (electrical, office, operational, ID, custody)

$74,481 for Misc. Equipment (computer switch)

$12,044 Document Exploitation (DocEx), Under Cover

The Office of Detention and Removal Costs so far have been $2,441,642. Line items:

$495,697 for Temporary Duty Assignment Cost for 281 ICE Detention and Removal Personnel

$1,905,750 for Leased Services, KBR (formerly Kellogg Brown & Root), shower trailers, latrines, detainment at Cattle Congress, processing, physical security, detainee meals

$40,195 for Supplies (cuffs / custody, property)

The official document from Immigration and Customs Enforcement concludes:

These are the known Office of Investigations costs as of October 1, 2008.  This investigation is still ongoing and incurring additional expenses.

These are the known Office of Detention and Removal costs as of October 6, 2008.  This investigation is still ongoing and incurring additional expenses.

The Des Moines Register noted that the $5.2 million figure does not include costs incurred to the U.S. Department of Labor or the U.S. attorney’s office in Cedar Rapids. The Register report included this as well:

Scott Frotman, a spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers, a union that has attempted to organize Agriprocessors’ workers, was critical of the Postville raid. He said it covers up the fact that the Bush administration has done nothing to fix what he called a broken immigration system.

“The Agriprocessors’ raid cost taxpayers millions of dollars, it raised serious due process issues, and it may have compromised federal investigations into labor abuses by the company’s management,” Frotman said.

U.S. Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican, disagreed. He said immigration laws must be enforced, regardless of the expense to taxpayers.

“If we start saying, ‘Well, it costs too much money to enforce the law,’ then we will see more and more of these radical, pro-illegal immigration activists drive more wedges between us and make it harder to enforce the law,” King said.

I see no evidence that large-scale raids such as that in Postville or earlier at the Swift plant in Marshalltown do anything to reduce illegal immigration. But I’m not surprised that King is for heavy-handed actions that punish immigrants without changing much about corporate hiring practices.

Meanwhile, Lynda Waddington just wrote this piece for Iowa Independent about how the raid adversely affected life in Postville.

Iowa State Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald unveiled a new tax calculator tool this morning in a conference call with reporters. According to a statement from the Obama campaign in Iowa, the calculator  

allows Iowans to test just how much savings individuals and families can expect under both Barack Obama and John McCain’s proposed tax plans.  The calculator prompts users to enter their households’ specific data, and then calculates the difference under each candidate’s proposals.  See the calculator at: http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

[…]

Treasurer Fitzgerald, who has been Iowa’s state treasurer for 26 years, said, “Iowans deserve to know the facts about each candidates’ tax policies.  As the McCain campaign continues to launch false attacks on Barack Obama’s tax plan, this new tax calculator will help voters across the country see for themselves how the Obama-Biden economic plan will provide real tax relief to 95 percent of working families.  Our country faces challenging economic times, and we need steady leadership that will put money back in the pockets of middle class families, create new jobs, strengthen our small businesses and turn our economy around – that’s what we’ll get with Barack Obama as president.”

Barack Obama will give a tax cut to 95 percent of workers and their families, leading middle class families to face the lowest income tax rates in over 50 years. He will also eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000, and give struggling homeowners a mortgage tax worth 10 percent of the interest they pay on their mortgage.

On the other hand, McCain will put the corporate interests ahead of the middle class by giving $45 billion in tax breaks to the 200 largest corporations in America, including $4 billion in giveaways to oil companies that are already making record profits.  And while he’ll reward corporations that ship jobs overseas, he won’t give any tax relief at all to 101 million households.

I just used the calculator, plugging in my family’s details, and we save five times as much under the Obama tax plan as we do under the McCain tax plan.

There’s also a short web ad on the tax calculator page, which highlights the key facts about the Obama and McCain tax proposals.

It’s nice to see a Democratic candidate going on offense when it comes to tax policy.