I received this message yesterday from Elesha Gayman's campaign saying there are just 40 days until the election.  That means today there are just 39. 

Early voting started throughout Iowa yesterday and we need to do everything we can to support strong progressive candidates.  

Iwould like to encourage people to donate to Elesha's campaign or to Tim Hoy, Eric Palmer, Jerry Sullivan, and Sharon Steckman through the Iowa Blogs: Expanding the Majority page on Act Blue.  With your help we can help expand the Democratic Majority in the Iowa House.

We have forty days until the polls close and the ballots are counted. I am asking you to pledge $40 or 40 hours to the campaign between now and election day! If you can even do $4 or 4 hours your help will make the difference! (www.eleshagayman.com)

We have a lot of money left to raise and we have everything from knocking doors, making phone calls, placing yard signs, and helping with data entry. The Republicans are throwing everything and the kitchen sink my way and the negative attacks have begun.

Please send an email to my campaign manager, Matt Singer, at msinger@iowademocrats.org or call 734-846-0302 if you can help!

You can make donations online by visiting my website at www.eleshagayman.com and clicking on contribute. Or you can mail donations to: Elesha Gayman for Iowa, PO Box 2567 – Davenport, IA 52809.

Anything you can do to help will be greatly appreciated!

Elesha

I had a doctor’s appointment this morning, and they had the CBS Early Show on in the waiting room. One of the anchors was down in Oxford, Mississippi on the Ole Miss campus, where the first presidential debate is scheduled to be held tonight.

Behind him a crowd of mostly white students cheered and waved “Change We Need” signs.

That’s right, a bunch of white kids cheered for a black presidential nominee on the Ole Miss campus, where a building still has bullet marks from the violence that accompanied black student James Meredith’s enrollment in 1962.

It’s a great day for this country, even if John McCain decides not to show up to debate Barack Obama.

Granny Doc has more on this from the perspective of someone who remembers the civil rights unrest.

Otherwise she would not be able to make a fool of herself like this on national television:

It’s incredible that so few Republicans have called her out for being totally unprepared and unqualified.

Josh Marshall has the punch line: as governor, Palin hasn’t shown much interest in ties with Russia, according to the Seattle Times.

Opportunities abound for Alaska governors to engage in Russian diplomacy, with the state host to several organizations focusing on Arctic issues. Anchorage is the seat of the Northern Forum, an 18-year-old organization that represents the leaders of regional governments in Russia, as well as Finland, Iceland and Canada, Japan, China and South Korea.

Yet under Palin, the state government – without consultation – reduced its annual financial support to the Northern Forum to $15,000 from $75,000, according to Priscilla Wohl, the group’s executive director. That forced the forum’s Anchorage office to go without pay for two months.

Palin – unlike the previous administrations of Gov. Frank Murkowski and Gov. Tony Knowles – also stopped sending representatives to Northern Forum’s annual meetings, including one last year for regional governors held in the heart of Russia’s oil territory.

“It was an opportunity for the Alaska governor to take a delegation of business leaders to the largest oil-producing region in Russia, and she would have been shaking hands with major leaders in Russia,” Wohl said.

UPDATE: Rumor is that CBS has even more devastating footage they have not released yet.

The McCain campaign is said to be very worried about the VP debate, since practice sessions have been “disastrous.”

Palin has now lost conservative columnist Kathleen Parker:

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

For more reviews of Palin’s interview with Couric, click here.  

A few weeks ago I read that Ron Paul was not endorsing any presidential candidate but was urging his supporters to vote for the third-party candidate of their choice–anyone but Barack Obama or John McCain.

However, this week Paul endorsed Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin. The Wall Street Journal blog pointed me toward this letter from Paul to supporters, which contains a bit of a rebuke to Libertarian candidate Bob Barr:

The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November.   It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members.  I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman.  It is not against the law to participate in more then one political party.  Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well.  The more votes they get, the better.  I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.

In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York.  This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats.  We need more states to permit this option.  This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.

I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election.  I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate.

When you think about what an insiders’ club Congress is, it’s amazing that Paul (still a Republican Congressman from Texas) did not endorse his former colleague Barr, who represented Georgia for many years in the House. Barr has denounced the Republican Party for embracing big government and not insisting that the president abide by the law.

The big question for me is whether Paul’s endorsement of Baldwin will cut into Barr’s support in some of the key swing states. I’ve argued before that Barr could tip Nevada to Obama, but ProgressiveSouth writes that Barr could also be a factor in North Carolina.

Anyone out there know any Ron Paul voters or caucus-goers? Will they settle for McCain, sit out the election or vote for a third-party alternative?

For the record, nine presidential candidates will appear on the Iowa ballot, including Baldwin and Barr.

I haven’t written much about Leonard Boswell since the Democratic primary for the third Congressional district, because there hasn’t been much to say. He hasn’t been campaigning much, nor has he needed to. IA-03 is not a competitive House district according to any of the people who follow Congressional races closely (for instance, Swing State Project, the Cook Report and Open Left).

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) spent money to defend Boswell in 2004 and 2006 but hasn’t seen the need for that this year.

So I was more than a little annoyed to receive a fundraising solicitation from Dody Boswell this week:

Dear Friends,

First, thank you all for your support with Leonard’s campaign.  I know we’ve all been working hard for the last few months and now we only have 50 days to go!  It’s great to know so many of you have already gone online to donate.

It is truly with urgency, that I need to ask you again to help out my husband.  The election is closing in and we need to raise enough money to buy some media for the last few weeks of the campaign.  We also have the reporting deadline in two weeks on September 30 and need to show the press that we have the funds to compete.

Our goal is within reach and I know if everyone donated at least forty-two more dollars we will make that goal!!!  You can donate at www.boswellforcongress.com or click on the link below.

PLEASE CONTRIBUTE $42.00 BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER 30 DEADLINE!!!

I can personally tell you how hard Leonard works for us.  And that he appreciates everything that you do to allow him to continue his efforts on our behalf in Washington.

I thank you so very much,

Dody

PS – Your small contribution of $42 really will make all the difference!

Boswell for Congress

P.O. Box 6220

Des Moines, IA 50309

Excuse me, Boswell needs “to show the press that we have the funds to compete”?

As of June 30, Boswell had $393,852 on hand, while little-known Republican challenger Kim Schmett had $28,768. Boswell has held several fundraisers since then.

He should not be asking constituents for more money. He should be handing over a large chunk of his campaign account to the DCCC so they can use it to play for more Republican-held seats and to defend truly vulnerable incumbents (the way the DCCC helped Boswell in past years).

You can reach Boswell’s Congressional office at (202)225-3806.

You can reach his campaign headquarters at (515)883-2254 or Campaign@BoswellForCongress.com.

Tell his staff that you want him to give at least 10 percent of his campaign’s cash on hand to the DCCC.

For more on this year’s Use It or Lose It campaign, read this post by Lucas O’Connor. If every safe House incumbent handed over 10 percent of his or her campaign account, the DCCC would have an additional $8.3 million to use in competitive races.

On a different subject, I called Boswell’s Congressional office yesterday and was told he did not have any statement yet on the bailout proposal. What do you want to bet he was among the Blue Dogs who urged Nancy Pelosi today to move toward the position of the Bush administration and corporate lobbyists?

I’ll fill in that oval next to Boswell’s name on the ballot, but he won’t get a dime from me.

I’m giving as much as I can afford to Rob Hubler and Becky Greenwald.

Midnight tonight (September 25) is the deadline to submit comments on a rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A few weeks ago Planned Parenthood Action sounded the alarm about this proposal, which would allow health care providers to refuse to provide care that goes against their personal beliefs. This diary contains a link to a pdf file of the relevant document from HHS and explains how it could affect women’s health care:

Tweaking the interpretation of existing law, ALL employees of health care organizations would be able to refuse to be associated with providing services to which they are opposed.  The administration says the new rule is targeted at abortion, but the trouble is they have made the rule so vague it could apply across the spectrum in health care, including the birth control women need to prevent abortions.

Creating a special class of employees based on personal beliefs allows everyone from the doctor to the receptionist have a say in your health care.  Any employee can deny care to a patient, and the organization is helpless to take action to correct the situation.

   * The receptionist who schedules your appointment may not do so because he or she does not agree with the type of contraception you use.

   * The doctor may not tell you about all of your options because they are opposed based on their religious beliefs.

A health care organization that ensures patients get access to necessary services may lose its ability to provide federal assistance to low-income patients because of one employee.  And they can take no corrective action.

Cecile Richards, who leads the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, sent out an e-mail yesterday urging concerned citizens to submit a public comment:

The Bush administration has issued a rule that would limit the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate reproductive health information when they visit a health care provider. It’s more of the Bush administration’s bad medicine, and this is our last chance to stop it.

This new rule could allow individual health care providers to redefine abortion to include the most common forms of birth control – and then refuse to provide these basic services. A woman’s ability to manage her own health care is at risk of being compromised by politics and ideology. We have until September 25 at midnight to voice our opposition.

If elected, the McCain/Palin ticket promises to be the most anti-choice administration ever. But first, the current president seems determined to do as much damage as he can before he leaves office. We have just one more day to voice our opposition to the Bush administration rule. Please take a moment right now to add your name to the hundreds of thousands of others who will not stand by and let this happen without a fight.

The Planned Parenthood Action Center has created a page where you can submit your comments on this proposed rule. It’s easy, so please do weigh in.

I forgot that our lame duck fearless leader was going to address the nation tonight on why we should hand over $700 billion to his buddies on Wall Street.

I saw that Warren Buffett is investing $5 billion in Goldman Sachs and will receive equity in return. Why should taxpayers settle for less?

This is an open thread for anything related to the bailout or Bush’s speech. How did he look and sound?

This time it’s a Marist poll, conducted between September 18 and September 21, showing Barack Obama beating John McCain in Iowa by 51 percent to 41 percent. That makes five polls in the last month showing Obama above 50 percent and with a double-digit lead here.

How do you like not being a swing state anymore?

Remember, people need to vote for Democrats all the way down the ticket. If Obama wins Iowa by 10 points or more, we should be able to win seats in Congress and the state legislature.

John McCain announced that he is suspending his campaign events and wants to delay the first presidential debate, scheduled for Friday, because of the economic crisis. Talking Points Memo has the full text of McCain’s statement.

A few days ago, he was still saying the fundamentals of our economy are strong.

Apparently Barack Obama called McCain this morning

to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal. At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama’s call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement.  The two campaigns are currently working together on the details.

Then McCain went public on postponing the first debate. I’m with Chris Bowers: this was a cheap stunt to “upstage Obama after Obama made the first ‘bi-partisan’ move.”

I also agree with Bowers that Obama was foolish to try to minimize the distinction between himself and McCain on this issue. His campaign should be pounding on McCain’s role in deregulating the banking industry, and the fact that McCain surrounds himself with corporate lobbyists.

Anyway, at least the Obama campaign is insisting that “The debate is on.” They should not fall for this maneuver.

Note that it doesn’t cost McCain much to suspend his stump speeches–he doesn’t exactly draw huge crowds, and it’s probably tiring to be on the road every day. I doubt he’ll cut back on his television advertising. CORRECTION: McCain’s spokesperson says he is taking his campaign’s television ads off the air. No word yet on whether the Republican National Committee or 527 groups that support McCain will do the same.

UPDATE: Ben Smith has Obama’s response:

“It’s my belief that this is exactly the time the American people need to hear from the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsible with dealing with this mess,” he said. “In my mind, actually, it’s more important than ever that we present ourselves to the American people and try to describe where we want to take the country and where we wnt to take the economy as well as dealing with some of the issues of foreign policy that were initially the subject of the debate.”

[…]

“Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time,” he says. “It’s not necessary for us to think that we can do only one thing, and suspend everything else.”

SECOND UPDATE: Now CNN says the McCain campaign wants to move the first presidential debate to October 2, when the vice-presidential debate is currently scheduled. So they want to use this crisis as an excuse for delaying the VP debate. I share Hunter’s suspicion that the VP debate might never get rescheduled if the Obama campaign allows it to be delayed.

Meanwhile, Todd Beeton heard on Fox News that “John McCain currently does not plan to attend the debate Friday night but that if a plan is agreed to by Friday, he will.”

I hope Congressional Democrats do not give in to this blackmail. Let Obama show up next to an empty podium at the first debate. Who’d look “ready to lead” then?

You may recall that Al Gore carried Iowa by two votes per precinct, but did you know that early voting gave Gore his margin of victory here?

I explained why I vote early here, and Justus wrote a more comprehensive piece on the subject at BooMan Tribune.

Every vote Democrats bank early reduces the chance of losing votes through illness or family emergencies. Every vote Democrats bank early means one less phone number for volunteers to call, and one less door for canvassers to knock on election day.

The Obama campaign in Iowa is running 21 phone banks today to promote early voting. There will also be 17 “vote early for change” supporter gatherings tomorrow morning across the state. Details for all those events are after the jump.

Even if you don’t have time to volunteer today or tomorrow, keep your eye out for anyone you know who might be willing to vote before election day. On Tuesday I ran into an elderly neighbor whose husband has a lot of health problems. She’s got her hands full, so I asked her if she needed absentee ballot request forms. She said that would be wonderful–she hadn’t had time yet to look into how that worked. I went home and called the Obama precinct captain in my neighborhood, and she had a volunteer run the forms over a few hours later.

Remember to tell your friends and family that they should fill out the whole ballot and not just vote for Barack Obama. We need to win those down-ticket races.

Also remember that there are many ways to volunteer that do not involve calling strangers on the phone or knocking on strangers’ doors.

You can bring food to a campaign headquarters, offer to sort literature for the canvassers, put up an out-of-town volunteer in your spare room, or even do laundry or errands for a campaign staffer. Or, just call your local campaign office to ask what kind of help they need.

Two months after the Board of Regents ordered an external investigation of how the University of Iowa handled a sexual assault case last year, two senior university officials got the ax:

University of Iowa President Sally Mason today fired Phillip Jones, 67, vice president for student services, and Marcus Mills, 52, vice president for legal affairs and general counsel.

Mason’s actions came after the Stolar Partnership last week released a report to the Iowa Board of Regents that heavily criticized Mills’ and Jones’ actions after the alleged sexual assault at Hillcrest Residence Hall on Oct. 14, 2007. The review by the St. Louis law firm found “numerous and substantial flaws” in not only the U of I’s response to the assault, but also in its policies, procedures and practices.

According to the Des Moines Register, Mason fired Jones and Mills after they refused to resign, and neither will receive severance pay.

It’s likely to be a career-ending action for Jones, who had worked at the University of Iowa for 40 years. I don’t know him personally, but I have heard good things about him from faculty and former students in Iowa City. Jones refused to comment when contacted by the Register.

Mills spoke out, though:

Mills said Tuesday night he believed he was unfairly singled out in today’s dismissal and in the Stolar report.

“I believe I handled the matter to the best of my ability under the circumstances,” Mills said in a phone interview.

He said he disagreed with the Stolar report’s assessment of his actions. He said he did not have a conflict of interest in acting as U of I general counsel and liaison with the alleged victim’s family.

Mills said investigators did not allow him to give his version of six phone conversations he had with the alleged victim’s father. Mills also disagreed with the law firm’s assessment that he should have asked a judge to permit the U of I to release documents pertaining to the report, he said tonight.

“I’m disappointed that the president and the regents didn’t have an opportunity to get a fuller view,” Mills said.

What do you think? Did Jones and Mills deserve to lose their jobs, or were they scapegoated? Should anyone else be sacked over the way the university dealt with this case?

The Board of Regents delayed Mason’s first performance review until after investigators finished their report. I doubt they will fire her, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she gets no raise, or a smaller raise than the Iowa State and University of Northern Iowa presidents.

Perhaps a little from column A and a little from column B:

One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The disclosure undercuts a statement by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years.

Mr. Davis’s firm received the payments from the company, Freddie Mac, until it was taken over by the government this month along with Fannie Mae, the other big mortgage lender whose deteriorating finances helped precipitate the cascading problems on Wall Street, the people said.

They said they did not recall Mr. Davis’s doing much substantive work for the company in return for the money, other than speak to a political action committee of high-ranking employees in October 2006 on the approaching midterm Congressional elections. They said Mr. Davis’s firm, Davis & Manafort, had been kept on the payroll because of Mr. Davis’s close ties to Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who by 2006 was widely expected to run again for the White House.

The Obama campaign has talked about how McCain surrounds himself with lobbyists while posturing to be against the “special interests,” but this takes it to a new level.

Freddie Mac paid Rick Davis’s firm $15,000 a month for more than 30 months (that’s $180,000 a year for nearly three years) for doing no work other than staying close to McCain.

McCain either doesn’t know what’s going on in his inner circle or brazenly lied to the press. How can we trust him to run the country?

Speaking of McCain, after the jump I’ve posted a new viral e-mail that’s going around with the subject line, “You owe $2,293.53 dollars to Wall Street Fat Cats… check, cash or charge?”

The e-mail discusses how McCain and his adviser, former Senator Phil Gramm, voted to deregulate the banking industry, which led to the current stock market meltdown. Click here to read two alternative versions of the e-mail, playing on the same concept. Pass it on!

Saw this on Daily Kos on Tuesday:

From Iowa City, Iowa, a friend of mine writes:

“I saw am interesting omen last night.  They’ve closed the local McCain campaign office.  I go by there once or twice a week and I noticed last night that it appeared to be empty.  I double checked this AM and, indeed, it appears abandoned.”

After the jump I’ve posted addresses for the “victory offices” currently listed on this page of the Iowa for McCain-Palin website. The contacts listed for each office appear to be employees of the Iowa Republican Party.

Clearly the Iowa Republican Party will keep some field offices open to GOTV for statehouse races, even if the McCain campaign has transferred staff out of Iowa.

Bleeding Heartland readers, your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to check whether any McCain offices you’ve noticed in your area are still open. You can post a comment in this thread or e-mail me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com to let me know whether the offices have been shut down.

UPDATE: An alert reader writes:

I swung past 413 Northwestern Ave in Ames this morning.  It looked like mostly a Latham operation.  There are 15-20 Latham signs plastered across the front of the building but only one McCain-Palin sign, on the lower portion of the front door.  There is also a single Reed sign and maybe one sign for someone else, but I didn’t get a good look at that one.  I didn’t go inside but there were cars parked outside and it looked like it was still open.  

Thanks, and keep e-mailing me with reports like these.

Most of the electoral vote counters have swung in Barack Obama’s favor during the past week, but it still looks as if the presidential election will be close. In fact, there are at least two plausible scenarios for the candidates tying at 269 electoral votes each. That would happen if Obama won all the states John Kerry won in 2004, plus Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada, or if Obama won all the Kerry states except for New Hampshire, plus Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado.

The Constitution stipulates that the House of Representatives picks the president if no candidate wins 270 electoral votes, while the Senate picks the vice president. But it’s not a simple vote of the House members; they vote by state delegation.

I’ve been wondering how this would play out, and today I came across this excellent post at the Campaign Diaries blog that analyzes the chances for either Obama or McCain to win the necessary 26 state delegations.

Before I read that post I hadn’t realized that this scenario could happen even if the electoral college splits 270-268, if a “faithless elector” switches his or her vote away from the winner.

I encourage you to click through and read the whole post, but the Cliff’s Notes version is that Obama appears to have a better chance of winning 26 state delegations in the House than McCain does. It’s also possible that neither presidential candidate could win 26 state delegations:

What would happen then? Well, the 12th amendment states that if by the fourth of March the House has not agreed on a candidate, the vice-president would become president. And given that Senate Democrats would have long already elevated Joe Biden to the vice-presidency, that could mean a Biden Administration.

The funny thing is, I think I would prefer President Biden to either Obama or McCain. But let’s hope Obama wins with a clear mandate on November 4.

Following up on my post about Congressman Tom Latham’s first television ad, Becky Greenwald’s campaign has publicized the gory details about what the fourth district’s loyal Republican foot-soldier has done on health care in Congress.

Excerpt:

Tom Latham’s campaign released their first advertisement called “Trusted Leadership” on healthcare touting one piece of bipartisan legislation. However one bill can’t hide Latham’s years of voting with the George Bush and the Republican Party 94% of the time. These bills benefit the insurance industry and pharmaceutical companies and hurt the American people.

“Latham’s ad is nothing more than a distraction from his real record of partisan votes with Bush and the Republicans against healthcare and hundreds of thousands of dollars from special interests,” said Erin Seidler, Greenwald Campaign spokesperson. “Becky Greenwald will fight for comprehensive healthcare for all Americans and fix the disastrous Medicare Part D program.”

The full text of the press release is after the jump. Good stuff.

I missed these when I compiled my calendar of events for this week, but I learned from the Center on Sustainable Communities that Edward Mazria, an “internationally recognized architect, author, educator and visionary,” is in central Iowa today and tomorrow.

Mazria will present “Now, it’s Personal….A three-pronged solution for achieving energy independence and solving climate change via the business sector, the largest energy consumer in the U.S.. ”

He is giving a free lecture in Ames tonight:

Ames Lecture

Wednesday, September 24th

7:00 pm

Iowa State University

College of Design

Kocimski Auditorium

He will speak on the same topic tomorrow at lunchtime:

Des Moines Luncheon

Thursday, September 25th

11:30a.m. – 1:00 p.m.

Arthur Davis Conference Room

Greater Des Moines Partnership

700 Locust St., Suite 100, Des Moines

Cost to attend is $20 for COSC members, $30 for non-members. (Price includes lunch.)

Questions? Contact Meg Fitz at 515-286-4934 or mfitz@desmoinesmetro.com.

You can learn more about Edward Mazria and his 2030 challenge at http://www.mazria.com.

Sounds like an interesting program. If anyone goes to hear Mazria, please post a comment or a diary afterwards.

If you were a loyal Republican foot-soldier seeking re-election in a state that’s trending Democratic, where the Democratic presidential candidate has a commanding lead over your party’s nominee as well as a much bigger ground game in your own Congressional district, you might want to reinvent yourself.

Late last week, Tom Latham did just that in his first television commercial of this election cycle. You can view the ad at Latham’s campaign website. It focuses on a bill Latham introduced to address the nursing shortage in Iowa.

Judging from the content of this ad, Latham recognizes that 2008 will be a big Democratic year in Iowa.

Neither the commercial nor the campaign’s accompanying press release (which I’ve posted after the jump) mention that Latham is a Republican. Instead, they note that he authored “bipartisan legislation” in a specific area.

Polls typically give Democrats an edge on handling health care and education. Even someone watching this ad with the sound turned down can see that Latham is portraying himself as sensitive to these issues. Here are the words that flash on the screen during the commercial:

Nursing Shortage (footage of ambulance with siren, nurse alongside patient on stretcher)

Iowa Faces Severe Nursing Shortage (hospital scenes)

Bipartisan Legislation (Latham sitting and writing)

Help Nurses Repay Education Loans (nurse with patients)

Tom Latham (as he talks with one of the nurses quoted in the ad)

In addition, Latham’s ad features three testimonials from nurses. One of them is “nurse practitioner Linda Upmeyer,” wearing a white nurse’s coat with a stethoscope around her neck, who says, “Tom has done a wonderful job of hearing the need and translating that into legislation.” Conveniently, the ad fails to identify Upmeyer as the Republican state representative from Iowa House district 12.  

The press release announcing Latham’s television ad is even more blatant about running away from the Republican label. It describes Latham as “bipartisan” twice and notes that he “teamed up with Wisconsin Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin to introduce this bill in the United States Congress.”

I never thought I’d see the day when the conservative Republican Latham would brag about working with Baldwin, who is openly gay and has one of the most progressive voting records in Congress. Latham’s voting record as a whole could hardly be more different from Baldwin’s.

Not only does Latham’s ad avoid mentioning his party affiliation, it seems designed to address the gender gap by having a female voice-over and three women nurses do almost all of the talking. The only male voice you hear is Latham’s at the very end, saying “I’m Tom Latham, and I approved this message.”

Democratic candidates tend to do better among women, and the disparity may be even greater this year in IA-04. Becky Greenwald is giving Iowans the chance to send a woman to Congress for the first time.

One clever feature of this ad is that it implies Latham has delivered for Iowa’s nurses, without mentioning whether the bill he authored has any chance of becoming law. The wording of the press release suggests that the bill has not advanced:

Latham teamed up with Iowa nursing and health care professionals through numerous roundtables around the state to listen to their unique perspective and input on what was needed. He then wrote legislation and teamed up with Wisconsin Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin to introduce the bill in the United States Congress.

You would think that someone who spent 14 years in Congress (12 of them as part of a Republican majority) would be able to point to some concrete achievement on behalf of nurses or in the area of health care.

Instead, the Latham campaign talks about his “trusted leadership” on the nursing shortage, when he has nothing to show for this “leadership” other than writing one bill that went nowhere.

By the way, Latham signaled last week that he is not willing to defend the totality of his record in a public forum. He declined an invitation from KCCI-TV and the Des Moines Register to debate Greenwald during prime-time television. Latham also refused invitations to debate in August.

In a debate, Latham might have to explain why he talks about helping nurses repay their student loans in his commercial, when he voted for enormous cuts to federal student loan programs in 2005 and 2006.

As a challenger, Greenwald has lower name recognition than Latham, and understandably used her first television ad to introduce herself to voters. With Latham avoiding debates and using skillful image construction to conceal his ineffectiveness, I believe Greenwald will need to run some television ads that spell out why she is seeking to replace “Iowa’s low-yield Congressman.”

Because if they do, they should stay on the present course.

I didn’t write much about the Des Moines school board campaign, because I don’t live in the school district and didn’t have a firm grasp of what all the eight candidates stood for.

As I noted last week, three incumbents kept their seats in a relatively high-turnout election. The outcome was a setback for school board member Jonathan Narcisse, who was hoping to get a few allies elected.

That said, it appears to me that the majority on the board is now overplaying its hand in an effort to further marginalize Narcisse. Not only do I suspect this will backfire, I also think they are wrong about the prevailing level of satisfaction with Des Moines Public Schools.

At its meeting last Tuesday, the school board majority chose not to act on Dick Murphy’s ill-advised motion to censure Narcisse, probably because Narcisse had retained the prominent attorney Alfredo Parrish. Instead, the board

referred his alleged misconduct to Polk County and state officials for further investigation.

Board members voted 5-1 to forward alleged violations of state ethics laws and school board policies to the Polk County attorney’s office and Iowa attorney general’s office. Narcisse abstained from the vote.

The board rejected member Teree Caldwell-Johnson’s proposal to refer the alleged violations to an independent agency for investigation before referring them to authorities.

“Not once in closed or open session has this board been presented evidence to support the claims,” said Caldwell-Johnson, who cast the lone no vote.

Narcisse isn’t going to win any awards for congeniality, but I doubt that this action will diminish his standing among those who elected him to the school board.

From what I gather, the people who are comfortable with current governance of the Des Moines Public Schools interpret the recent election results as proof that the people are satisfied with the status quo.

However, Narcisse represents a significant number of Des Moines residents who are concerned about graduation rates and other problems in the district’s schools. If he wants another term on the board, I wouldn’t bet against him finishing in the top four next September (when four seats will be up for grabs).

The Des Moines Register’s reporting on the school board race focused on the fact that three challengers backed by Narcisse lost. But did they really lose because of their association with Narcisse and his criticisms?

A major controversy that developed during the school board campaign received little attention in the Register’s reporting. Some community activists, led by the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa, repeatedly sounded the alarm about a threat to the school board from the religious right.

Gil Cranberg reported shortly before the election on the contents of the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa’s newsletter:

The headline on the lead article in the publication warns, “Religious Right Plots to Control Iowa’s Largest School District.”

The Alliance’s board represents a large number of religious denominations. Its mission includes challenging “political extremism based on religion;” and its goal is to ensure “that the work and influence of government and religious entities remain separate.” The Interfaith Alliance newsletter identifies the Iowa Family Policy Center as opposed to these goals and says it is “helping to elect three candidates to the school board.” The three are unnamed. Connie Ryan Terrell, the Interfaith Alliance’s executive director, said that’s to avoid engaging in electoral activity and jeopardizing the organization’s tax-exempt status.

The Alliance is not bashful though about bashing the Iowa Family Policy Center. The newsletter said the Center is “not supportive of public education and works tirelessly to privatize education by diverting additional public funds to private schools.” Further, the newsletter said, the Family Policy Center “advocates for prayer in school, teaching intelligent design as science curriculum and posting the Ten Commandments in public schools.”

If you read Cranberg’s piece, you will learn that those three unnamed candidates (opposed by the Interfaith Alliance and supported by the Iowa Family Policy Center) are the same three candidates Narcisse was supporting.

It wasn’t just one newsletter. The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa sent out several mass e-mails alluding to a threat to the public schools in Des Moines. One that I received on August 28 included this passage:

The religious right is not concerned about academic integrity, graduation rates or academic equity across a school district.  Regardless of Supreme Court rulings or state law, the religious right inserts itself into school board races across the country to gain control of school boards and impose conservative Christian education and “family values” on the public school students. Their ultimate goal is privatization of the public schools, which you can be assured, will not be equitable.  It is important these concerns are raised in the election process rather than debating them later at school board meetings.

I know you care about your community overall and specifically the children of your community.  I ask you to get involved!

·        Ask all the candidates if they have received the support (verbal, voter-organizing, or financial) of the Iowa Family Policy Center or the Iowa Christian Alliance.

·        Ask all the candidates, do they support having a public education system or should the public education system be privatized?

·        Ask all the candidates, if elected, what role will their faith and/or values play in shaping public policy for the school district?  What is their view on maintaining a boundary between religion and government, including public schools?

·        Ask all the candidates, would they vote to support or oppose the teaching of creationism, intelligent design, or Christian doctrine in the SCIENCE curriculum taught by the district’s teachers?

·        Ask all the candidates, do they support or oppose the districts’ employment and student non-discrimination policies which includes sexual orientation and gender identity?  And how would they work to enhance the implementation and effectiveness of this policy?

An e-mail from the Interfaith Alliance on September 2 urged readers to attend school board candidate forums and ask similar questions.

I am convinced that this issue is partly why turnout was so high on September 9. I know of people who voted for the Des Moines school board incumbents because they were worried about giving the religious right a foothold.

It didn’t help that two of the three candidates aligned with Narcisse sent their own children to parochial schools. Obviously, they still have a right to run for the school board, because their property taxes support public schools. On the other hand, many people felt that people who kept their own kids out of public schools should not be involved in governance of those schools.

Here is an excerpt from an e-mail the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa sent out the day after the election:

It’s a good day for public education, religious freedom and democracy!

Regardless of where you live in Iowa , most of you knew about the particularly bitter election battle for 3 seats on the Des Moines School Board.

Most of you were aware of the work of the Iowa Family Policy Center ( Iowa ‘s largest religious right organization) to “reclaim” Iowa ‘s largest school district.  You understood the potential danger if that came to fruition, not only for the Des Moines school district but for the entire state.

And I am sure most of you know by now that IFPC was NOT successful in “reclaiming” the Des Moines schools!  Voters across Des Moines averted IFPC’s efforts with an amazing turnout (about twice as many as last year).

The children, families, staff, schools, district and democracy won!

On September 18 the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa sent out a fundraising e-mail, noting with pride that

It’s been a little over a week since the voters in Des Moines resoundingly pushed back the efforts of the religious right to “reclaim” the Des Moines school board.  Thank you for your support and for your help to inform other voters.

My point is that I would caution administrators and school board members not to conclude that the voting public are mostly satisfied with the Des Moines Public Schools. They may have supported incumbents for different reasons. If so, they may not be in a hurry to punish Narcisse next year.

Speaking of Des Moines residents who feel poorly served by the public schools, I support David Yepsen’s proposal to move away from at-large elections for seats on the Des Moines school board:

Winners who come out of individual districts have to listen to their constituents and work with winners from other districts to get things for their own. Out of that political process, everyone benefits.

At-large elections haven’t worked in the Des Moines schools. Instead, some neighborhoods feel left out. Huge majorities from one neighborhood can impose leaders on others. This is a particular problem in Des Moines, where for generations, the community has sometimes split into east-side, south-side and west-side factions.

It’s flared up again in our schools because the east-siders and south-siders think the west-siders, who often elect more of the board members, aren’t doing as much for the east-side and south-side schools as they do for their own. Never mind the facts that suggest otherwise – the feeling is there.

Electing board members from districts would help cure it. It would also encourage more people to seek office. As it is now, many qualified people from some neighborhoods don’t run for the board because they figure they have no chance in a citywide election. If candidates had to come out of districts, more new leaders would be tempted to run.

West-siders have dominated the Des Moines school board for a long time. Bringing some balance to the board would reduce tension in the community.

If we’re talking about policy mistakes with disastrous long-term outcomes, it’s hard to top the Iraq War for loss of life and the 2005 energy bill for threats to the planet.

In fact, we could be here all day if we set out to brainstorm all the horrible things to come out of George Bush’s presidency.

But it does seem like the proposed bailout of failing banks is a contender for worst Bush administration proposal ever.

Here are a bunch of links on the subject.

Paul Krugman of the New York Times is updating his blog frequently.

Senator Bernie Sanders: Billions for Bailouts: Who Pays?

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich: What Wall Street Should Be Required to Do, to Get A Blank Check From Taxpayers

Bonddad: This is one of the worst bills to ever be proposed.

Robert Borosage: Financial Crisis: Time for a Citizens’ Plan?

Devilstower: Three Times is Enemy Action

Ian Welsh: How To Bail Out Ordinary Mortgage Holders And Not Just Banks

8ackgr0und N015e wrote a funny piece on one angle of this story that hasn’t received as much attention.

Two of Josh Marshall’s readers ask really good questions.

This post by Matt Stoller includes an excellent statement from Senator Hillary Clinton.

As far as I know, no members of Congress from Iowa have issued public statements about the bailout, but I will post them as they become available.

Or does Sarah Palin sound like a high-school student using big words to fake her way through a college interview?

Remember, this is supposed to be her strong area. According to John McCain, Palin “knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America.”

When you think of the competent Republican women (like former New Jersey Governor Christie Whitman or Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas) whom McCain passed over to pick Palin, it is quite amazing.