Special interests spent thousands wining and dining lawmakers during this past legislative session…

Well-heeled interest groups, businesses and some government agencies spent nearly $195,000 wining and dining lawmakers and their staffers during this year’s legislative session, according to new financial disclosure forms.

Groups ranging from the Iowa State Bar Association and the Greater Des Moines Partnership to Union Pacific spent a total of $194,848 on receptions, dinners and other social events during this year’s session, according to reports filed with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board.

Some of the groups that spent the most were the Iowa Business Council, The Principal Financial Group, Iowa Gaming Association, the Iowa Wholesale Beer Dealers Association, and Hy-Vee Inc.

Now when you look at some of the big issues that were debated by lawmakers this past session you can see why these groups were so interested. These issues include: changes to collective bargaining, expanding health care to uninsured children, if casinos would be included in the smoking ban or not, and the expansion the bottle bill.

The article goes on to tell about the dramatic influence lobbyists and PAC's have on lawmakers and helping them get elected.

Disclosure reports for the year ending last June 30 showed that there were 610 groups who paid lobbyists a total of more than $8.5 million to influence lawmakers.

That financial influence was also shown in political action committee disclosures filed this month, with PACs having already given $872,509 to candidates this year.

I don't think I have heard a better reason for the need for clean elections and campaign finance reform in Iowa. Yet, political leaders refuse to allow the VOICE bill to come up for a vote. The VOICE legislation would bring voluntary clean elections to Iowa.

I'd love to sit down for dinner with Governor Culver, Sen. Gronstal, Rep. Murphy, and Rep. McCarthy and talk about the benefits of the VOICE bill, but I don't think I have enough money to afford it.

The details haven’t been released to the public, but according to the Des Moines Register on Tuesday,

Former job-training executive Ramona Cunningham has struck a plea agreement with federal prosecutors on charges that she conspired with others to misuse $1.5 million in taxpayer money.

The 53-year-old former director of the Central Iowa Employment and Training Consortium was scheduled for trial July 8 on 30 charges of fraud and conspiracy.

No doubt misogynistic heads are exploding all over central Iowa.  

Very demoralized, judging by Steve King’s latest comments to the press:

Iowa 5th District Congressman Steve King said a lack of enthusiasm in the Republican Party will make it difficult for the GOP to regain control of the U.S. House.

Democrats wrested control from Republicans in November 2006, putting lawmakers who had only known serving in the majority into the minority. King said Monday he’s doubtful the House, which now has 236 Democrats and 199 Republicans, can swing back.

“The math doesn’t look good,” King said.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Republican turnout in King’s own district this November is substantially down on 2004 levels, because John McCain has never been popular with hard-core conservatives.

Less than a week remains in the second fundraising quarter–go give some cash to Rob Hubler, who is challenging King.

So the U.S. House races don’t look great for Republicans. What about the Senate?

Well, Senator John Ensign of Nevada chairs the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, and he said two weeks ago that losing only three Senate seats “would be a terrific night for us, absolutely.” He added that Barack Obama is likely to help Democratic challengers in some states, such as Oregon.

Apparently Republican Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon agrees. This commercial tells you a lot about how Smith views the political climate:

Keep in mind that Smith endorsed John McCain early in the presidential contest. Yet clearly Smith believes that in Oregon, the less said about McCain, the better for his own re-election prospects.

Several bloggers have pointed out that this ad is misleading, since it implies that Obama has somehow endorsed Smith. Of course, Obama is solidly behind Smith’s Democratic opponent, Jeff Merkley.

Moreover, this commercial’s claim that Smith “helped lead the fight for a cleaner environment” is not supported by his voting record. Sarah Lane, netroots coordinator for Merkley, notes that Smith has a 29 percent lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters.

It’s not the first time Smith has tried to run away from the Republican Party in this campaign. This earlier tv ad portrayed him as someone who has stood up to President George Bush. I don’t think voters are going to buy this makeover.

If you want to follow the House and Senate races across the country, bookmark this page to read the frequent roundups by Daily Kos front-pager brownsox.

Getting back to our state, leading Iowa Republicans have been pessimistic about the coming election for months. The low turnout in the GOP primary races on June 3 can’t be encouraging for them.

Find a few statehouse candidates you believe in and give them money before June 30. Strong fundraising in the second quarter will help the candidates both directly and indirectly (by driving the media narrative about greater Democratic enthusiasm this year).

The invaluable Kagro X says the Senate vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act may be delayed until after the July 4 recess. Click the link to read why–it’s a bit complicated.

Daily Kos user dday has more on the story, but cautions that a final FISA vote could still take place in the Senate this week.

Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin is willing to filibuster this very bad bill, but right now it looks like we don’t have the 41 votes to defeat a cloture motion.

I don’t pretend to understand all the parliamentary maneuvering, but I do know that if you don’t have the votes to stop a bad bill today, delaying the vote can’t hurt and may even help your cause.

The House of Representatives passed the FISA bill last Friday. In the Iowa delegation, Steve King, Tom Latham and Leonard Boswell voted for the bill, while Dave Loebsack and Bruce Braley voted against it.

This fabulous tip was in the latest e-mail update from the Center on Sustainable Communities (a great non-profit organization, by the way):

Flood Clean-up

Stay away from bleach

Our first instinct is to bring out the chlorine to disinfect and kill mold. But a study conducted by Professor Jeffrey Morrell, Dept. of Wood Science, Oregon State University found that bleach “doesn’t eliminate the surface micro flora.” It doesn’t kill the roots of the mold, only bleaches it so we think it’s been cleaned away when it hasn’t. So not only is it ineffective, its fumes are harmful to both humans and the environment.

Try This Instead

Mix:

2 ounces of borax and

1 cup of white vinegar

Spray on the mold, let sit for up to 60 minutes and then wipe the area. The mixture will prevent mold from growing back.

— from After the Flood, Green Living Online

http://www.greenlivingonline.com

This website of a certified toxic mold inspection company confirms that “Chlorine Bleach is NOT Recommended for Mold Remediation.”

Here’s another document explaining “Why Chlorine Bleach is Not Effective in Killing Mold.”

The Green Guide briefly summarizes the health and environmental risks associated with household bleach here.

Using chlorine bleach indoors generates chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which may be carcinogenic. Household bleach also causes numerous accidental poisonings in children.

Click here to find a pdf file on Safer Cleaning Products from the Washington Toxics Coalition.

General non-toxic cleaning tips can also be found here.

Spread the word to anyone you know whose home suffered water damage this summer.

One thing I’ve never understood is why a smart guy like Tom Vilsack put the full weight of his administration’s political capital behind the Iowa Values Fund.

As Jason Hancock discusses in this story at Iowa Independent, the impact of that fund on jobs created and retained in Iowa has been questionable:

Colin Gordon, senior research consultant with the Iowa Policy Project, said the fear many critics of the Values Fund have is that once contracts expire and companies have received their last payment, the jobs that were created will disappear.

[…]

Companies make location decisions based on infrastructure needs, available workforce, skill level of the workforce and amenities, to name just a few reasons, Gordon said.

“It does not follow – just because a firm pockets money from the Values Fund – that the Fund can claim credit for all the jobs and investment that come afterward,” Gordon said. “We have no way of knowing whether Values Funds money actually attracts these firms. Certainly the academic research on this question is unequivocal that firms make location decisions based on local suppliers, customers and workers. No one turns down subsidies or tax breaks being thrown at them, but these are rarely the keys to investment and location decisions.”

Competition is fierce among states, IDED’s Bjornson said, and if Iowa doesn’t pony up, other Midwestern states will.

Swenson called this a “race to the bottom,” with Midwestern states trying to beat their neighbors but only making matters worse.

“Infrastructure, amenities, education, it all suffers, and thus, the Midwest becomes a less desirable place to do business,” he said. “The Midwest, including Iowa, is doing more damage to itself than anything else.”

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been doled out by the Values Fund, Swenson said, but Iowa has still grown at only one-third the rate the rest of the nation has. In 1982 Iowans made 92 percent of the national average for earnings per job. Today that figure stands at 78 percent.

[…]

Gordon said IDED can point to a few scattered success stories, but in the end the true impact of the Values Fund is murky at best.

“It diverts money from improving the things that truly matter to companies, and that hurts Iowa in the long haul,” he said. “These incentives are a short-term, politically easy fix to a much bigger problem. If you ask a business, and they answer honestly, they will say these incentives make very little difference to their final decision of where to locate.”

Count me among those who think the Values Fund is glorified corporate welfare. In some cases corporations didn’t even need to promise to create new jobs to receive money–they just had to promise not to decrease their current number of employees. But in an economic downturn, I don’t think those promises will make much difference.

Look at Lennox International. The slowdown in home construction has to be brutal for that manufacturer of heaters and air conditioners. Not surprisingly, the company will lay off 150 people in Marshalltown this August and 100 more people there next year. The Values Fund promised Lennox $6.6 million in forgivable loans in 2006, but it looks like Iowa taxpayers aren’t going to receive good value for that money.

We needed more leadership from Governor Vilsack on other economic policy issues, but he seemed to focus way too much on the Values Fund.

If anyone has any educated guesses or inside knowledge about why Vilsack believed so strongly in the Values Fund, please post a comment or send me an e-mail about it. It’s a real puzzle to me. A policy wonk like Vilsack should have been aware of research indicating that these state and local incentives are not major factors driving employment figures.

John McCain offered some new ideas on energy policy yesterday at a campaign stop in California:

The Arizona senator proposed a $300 million prize for whoever can develop a better automobile battery, and $5,000 tax credits for consumers who buy new zero-emission vehicles. The latest proposal is in addition to his support for overturning the federal ban on offshore oil drilling.

There was a rapid response from Sierra Club, which along with the United Steelworkers jointly endorsed Barack Obama a few days ago. I received this statement on the Iowa Sierra Club e-mail loop:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 23, 2008

CONTACT: Josh Dorner, 202.675.2384

             McCain Falls Short on Fuel Economy, Gas Prices

         America Needs Obama’s 50 MPG, $150 Billion Energy Plan

Washington, D.C.–The Sierra Club issued the following response to John

McCain’s speech on fuel economy and cars delivered today in Fresno,

California.

         Statement of Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director

“Senator Obama has demonstrated the real leadership America needs to

address both our energy and economic crises.  He understands that the

long-term solution to high gas prices is making our cars get better gas

mileage. He pushed hard last year to raise fuel economy standards to 35

miles per gallon and wants to give the American auto industry the help it

needs to hit 50 miles per gallon within two decades.

“By contrast, John McCain has a spotty record when it comes to fuel economy

and seems more interested in offering up a $300 million gimmick rather than

exercising the kind of bold leadership America needs. He has repeatedly

failed to embrace what America really needs — a vehicle fleet that gets to

50 mpg on a predictable and aggressive schedule, and then keeps on getting

better.  Instead of a $300 million giveaway, Barack Obama has proposed to

do what is really needed.  He has a plan that calls for a $150 billion

investment in the technologies we need to fight global warming and end Big

Oil’s chokehold on our economy once and for all. Senator Obama also wants

to end taxpayer-funded giveaways to the oil industry, wants the industry to

pay its fair share on its record profits, and will crack down on the Wall

Street speculators gaming the system at the expense of hardworking

Americans.  Meanwhile, Senator McCain continues to oppose the key

incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency that we need to make

the clean energy future a reality.”

In other recent McCain campaign news, Fortune magazine quoted the candidate’s adviser Charlie Black as saying a terrorist attack inside the U.S. “certainly would be a big advantage” to McCain.

The Republican nominee immediately disavowed Black’s comment, and Black apologized soon after.

If you’re wondering why the name Charlie Black sounds familiar, he’s a lobbyist who has represented heinous foreign dictators, and I mentioned him in this post a while back.

The Associated Press profiled the man leading McCain’s search for a running mate here.

Meanwhile, campaigning yesterday in New Mexico, Obama said he will “stand up for equal pay” for women as president, unlike McCain. I wrote about McCain’s opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act here. He claims to be “all in favor” of equal pay, but he won’t support a law that would help women who are denied equal pay to seek legal remedy for that discrimination.

Add that to Demo Memo’s list of ten reasons women should not vote for McCain.

Barack Obama’s campaign will not be using the presidential-style seal unveiled last Friday anymore. Apparently a lot of people agreed with me that the seal was a rare misstep for a campaign that has employed brilliant branding and marketing.

You can view the discontinued seal here.  

That was the first Iowa business (and as of June 23 the only Iowa business) to sign on to Greenpeace’s “Businesses for a Safe Climate” petition.

Click the link to read the list of more than 200 businesses that have signed the petition so far. Here is the text:

“As a business owner, it concerns me that Congress has yet to take serious action on global warming. Leading scientists and economists have identified the steps that we need to take in order to curb global warming and move toward the prosperity of a green economy. I call on Congress to follow these steps and pass legislation that will…

1) Create 5 million Green Jobs in order to conserve 20% of our energy by 2015 and create pathways out of poverty for people.

2) Freeze climate pollution levels now, then cut by at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050.

3) End development of new coal plants that emit global warming pollution. Pivot boldly away from fossil fuel dependence, and toward a clean energy future with strong standards and incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy.

_____________ believes in being a responsible member of the community. As such, we commit to examine and create a plan to reduce our carbon footprint in order to minimize our impact on the environment. We are doing our part, now it’s time for Congress to do theirs.”

If you know of a business that might be recruited to sign this petition, click here.

If you would like to list your business among those that have signed the petition, click here.

Many scientists expect global warming to increase the incidence of extreme weather such as the rainfall that caused catastrophic floods in Iowa this month.

It’s a good time for business owners to lend their support to efforts to reduce global warming, especially since some advocacy groups for business oppose further regulation of greenhouse-gas emissions.  

I received this action alert today from Smart Growth America:

Dear [desmoinesdem],

Can you believe the impact rising gas prices are having across the country?

Here in D.C., people are abandoning their cars and taking the Metro in record numbers. But most Americans don’t have options like Metro for relief — they don’t have access to convienient public transportation or live in walkable, connected neighborhoods. For years, our leaders have underinvested in these solutions, and now we’re paying the price as fuel prices rise by the day.

We need to demand better transportation choices that can help us get where we need to go — while saving money, conserving oil, and fighting global warming. Urge your Congressional member to support more funding for transit, biking, and smart growth by clicking on the button below to send them a message.

Congressional members Earl Blumenauer and Ellen Tauscher are leading an effort to invest in transit and smart growth — please ask your Representative to join them!

Thanks for your support.

Steve Davis

Smart Growth America

Please feel free to forward this to any of your friends and colleagues who might be interested in taking action or receiving alerts like this one in the future. If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for news and alerts here.

Keep track of SGA’s current advocacy work and get valuable resources to bolster your own efforts on our action page.

You can click here to

write and tell your representative to sign onto a letter from Reps. Earl Blumenauer and Ellen Tauscher urging Congress to increase funding for public transit, biking, public transportation, and walkable neighborhoods in federal climate legislation. Note: you can edit or personalize the text of the email below, which will help strengthen your message. Feel free to personalize it or add a story of your own from your legislator’s district.

Craig and LaVon Griffieon live on a century farm near Ankeny and are being profiled in a series of reports on NPR this year. The next segment will air today (Monday):

Another installment in the series of features from the FIVE FARMS project will air on NPR’s “All Things Considered” tonight. It is scheduled for the first hour of the program, which airs at 4:00p Eastern Time. (As always, check local listings!)

If you miss the feature as it’s broadcast, you can find it on the Five Farms web site, http://FiveFarms.com. or on http://www.1000friendsofiowa.org

LaVon Griffieon co-founded 1000 Friends of Iowa ten years ago. She won the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation’s Hagie Heritage Award in 2000. Drake University and the alternative weekly Cityview gave her the Central Iowa Activist Award for Environmental Activism in 2004.

Tune in today if you can.

The comedian George Carlin has died of a heart condition at the age of 71.

You can find links to a couple of clips and many remembrances in the comments to this diary:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

My brother and I saw Carlin live at the Civic Center in Des Moines during the 1980s.

One line I remember from his show was something like, “I’m leading Richard Pryor in heart attacks 2-1, but he’s leading me in burning yourself up 1-0.”

Use this as an open thread to share your thoughts and memories.

UPDATE: A bunch of video clips of classic Carlin routines are in the comment thread under this diary:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

Heavy rains and flooding across Iowa have created a wonderful environment for mosquito populations to explode. I rode to and from Grinnell on Friday and saw field after field with huge pools of standing water, even after a solid week of sunny weather in central Iowa.

Mr. desmoinesdem heard someone from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources say on Iowa Public Radio that mosquito counts this summer are about seven times higher than they were at the same time last year.

The Des Moines Register ran two articles about mosquitoes within the past week. The good news is that the mosquitoes that thrive in puddles on saturated ground are largely “nuisance species that can’t efficiently spread West Nile virus,” according to Ann Garvey, state public health veterinarian for the Iowa Department of Public Health.

The bad news is that experts cited in the Register are still encouraging people to use DEET-based insect repellents. The Register reported that the IDPH recommends “DEET at less than 30 percent concentrations to avoid potential health problems, including neurological problems.”

Dr. Denis Reavis, an urgent care physician at Mercy North in Ankeny quoted in this Register article, said DEET is the most effective way to prevent mosquito bites. The Register added:

DEET comes in different strengths for kids and adults. Babies less than 2 months old should not come in any contact with DEET.

Having researched this issue a few years ago after my older son was born, I would not recommend that anyone, even adults, use DEET in a household with children.

The Environmental Protection Agency does not permit DEET products to be labeled “child safe” and requires labels directing parents not to allow children to handle the product. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Environmental Protection Agency both recommend precautions when applying DEET to children, such as washing skin treated with DEET as well as treated clothing when children return inside. Few families find it practical to bathe their children and wash their clothing every time they come in from outside during the summer.

Kids Health for Parents, a web site published by the Nemours Foundation, recommends that repellents containing DEET be used “sparingly” on children between the ages of 2 and 12 and not put on their faces or hands, because children so frequently put their hands in their mouths.

The Lyme Disease Foundation has this advice for keeping ticks away: “On skin, use a repellent containing DEET. But don’t overdo it. Too much bug spray can cause breathing difficulty, especially in children.”

In any event, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has found that “picaridin and the oil of lemon eucalyptus provide the same level of protection [from mosquitoes] as DEET.”

I’ve tried several of the natural bug repellents mentioned in this piece, including Buzz Away, Buzz Away Extreme and Bug Ease. They all seem to work equally well. The main difference between them and DEET is that you have to reapply the natural repellents more frequently, about every one to two hours. Usually that’s no problem for me, because I only need it when I walk the dog or take the kids to the park for an hour or two.

NBC announced today that Tom Brokaw will host the Sunday morning show “Meet the Press” at least through the November election. That was a very shrewd decision.

A former longtime evening news anchor, Brokaw has more than enough stature for the job.

Equally important, Brokaw can help the network repair some of the damage that was done by MSNBC commentators who were biased against Hillary Clinton during the primaries.

Here’s Brokaw bluntly criticizing the way some of his colleagues covered the race:

“It was inappropriate, for journalists especially, to try to cut the process short,” NBC News’ anchor emeritus, Tom Brokaw, told The Associated Press. “It was an appropriate issue for people to report on, in context, but there was an awful lot of commentary disguised as reporting that gave the impression that people were trying to shove her out of the race.”

Brokaw’s old-school attitude often put him at odds with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann when he joined them for primary night coverage on MSNBC this year. One example was last Tuesday. Brokaw was talking about the contrasts between McCain and Obama when Olbermann interjected about “a third one trying to shoehorn her way” into the coverage.

“Well, I think that’s unfair, Keith,” Brokaw replied. “I don’t think she shoehorned her way in. When you look at the states that she won and the popular vote that she piled up, and the number of delegates that she has on her side, she’s got real bargaining power in all of this.”

Brokaw called all the discussion about Clinton’s exit a product of “too much time and too little imagination.”

This recent profile of “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann in the New Yorker quotes Brokaw several times as having doubts about the commentary on MSNBC. This passage was particularly telling:

Brokaw says he sometimes feels that he has been cast in the role of hall monitor at NBC News; if so, his charges have kept him busy. The day after the New Hampshire primary, Matthews asserted that Hillary Clinton owed her election as senator to public sympathy for her in light of her husband’s sexual peccadilloes. “It was completely out of line,” Brokaw says. “And Keith took it to another level” with his “shut the hell up” commentary.

In March, after Geraldine Ferraro said that Obama would not be where he is if he were not a black man, Olbermann issued a Special Comment that was aimed expressly at Clinton’s advisers (and their countenancing of Ferraro’s “cheap, ignorant, vile racism”) but that struck Clinton nonetheless. “Voluntarily or inadvertently,” Olbermann said, addressing Clinton directly, “you are still awash in this filth.”

Olbermann and Chris Matthews were way out of line with their Hillary-bashing this spring. Because their comments were not isolated incidents, they left a deeper taint on the network than NBC correspondent David Shuster’s offhand remark that the Clinton campaign “pimped out” Chelsea Clinton, which got him suspended.

The New Yorker profile of Olbermann makes clear that network executives were uncomfortable with how antagonistic coverage of Hillary became on “Countdown.”

Picking Brokaw to host “Meet the Press” signals that NBC is not going to let that very influential program tilt strongly in one direction during the general election campaign.

I think we can all agree that Barack Obama’s campaign has employed phenomenal marketing and branding.

I wonder whether the new seal they put on his podium during a speech in Chicago on Friday is going a bit far, though.

Click the link to view the seal. An Associated Press blurb notes:

A new seal debuted on Obama’s podium Friday, sporting iconography used in the U.S. presidential seal, the blue background, the eagle clutching arrows on left and olive branch on right, but with symbolic differences. Instead of the Latin ‘E pluribus unum’ (Out of many, one), Obama’s says ‘Vero possumus’, rough Latin for ‘Yes, we can.’ Instead of ‘Seal of the President of the United States’, Obama’s Web site address is listed. And instead of a shield, Obama’s eagle wears his ‘O’ campaign logo with a rising sun representing hope ahead.

I know it’s important for a candidate to look presidential, and I think putting his website address where all the cameras will catch it is a good idea. But I don’t know about using the presidential eagle, and I would particularly question putting his sunrise “O” in the middle of the eagle.

Obama has gotten plenty of traction from the larger-than-life image his campaign has helped to cultivate, but does this seal seem a bit presumptuous to you? I think his campaign imagery should be emphasizing his ability to relate to real people and their problems.

Incidentally, Mr. desmoinesdem says there is no word for “yes” in Latin, but I’ll take the AP’s word for it that the Latin words on the Obama seal could be roughly translated as “Yes, we can.”

To my mind, the “Yes, we can” slogan should only be used for a big political rally, when Obama is mostly speaking to his own supporters. If he is giving a policy address, I wouldn’t put “Yes, we can” front and center, because I don’t think that helps him with people who are not already backing him.

I think that when he gives a speech, the sign on his podium should just have a simple slogan in English, plus the website address.

Is anyone out there a marketing specialist? What do you think of the seal?

UPDATE: Daily Kos user robertacker13 sparked quite the flamewar with this diary: Call Obama, get rid of the seal

At Daily Kos, Devilstower offers five Good Ideas that are Bad Politics. They are:

A five year moratorium on new highway construction

End to single-purpose zoning

Bus Rapid Transit with Dedicated Lanes

Relaxing automotive safety laws

Fifty-five Mile an Hour Speed Limit

Click the link to read the case he makes for each of those. I agree with all of them except relaxing the safety rules. He makes some intriguing points, but I don’t think that change would produce the effect he’d like to see.

Yesterday, Daily Kos user bink wrote this diary: Amtrak Has Too Few Usable Train Cars Left. The gist is that demand for passenger rail is skyrocketing because of high gasoline prices, but Amtrak has a limited ability to lay on more trains because it has been starved of adequate funding for so long.

This should concern anyone who wants to see more passenger rail options available to Iowans.

By the way, Barack Obama wants to invest more in rail transportation, while John McCain has opposed funding for Amtrak for many years.

Toddlerdesmoinesdem and I were just out on the deck watering the tomato and basil plants.

For a month I was worried they’d die from being too waterlogged, but it’s been mostly dry and sunny for the last ten days. All the water in the collection saucer under the tomatoes finally evaporated, and the soil was starting to feel too dry.

UPDATE: Of course, a rain shower hit us a few hours after we watered the plants!  

Paul Rosenberg still wants John Edwards on the ticket, citing new opinion polls that show he helps Barack Obama more than many other possible running-mates.

Virginia Senator Jim Webb seems to have taken himself out of the running by co-sponsoring a bill to allow offshore oil drilling in Virginia.

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold seems to have taken himself out of the running by criticizing Obama for opting out of public financing for his general-election campaign.

General James Jones has to be off the list after he accompanied John McCain to a campaign event in Missouri.

As I’ve written before, Obama must above all do no harm with his VP choice. That means he can’t choose anyone who would alienate the Democratic constituencies that favored Hillary Clinton in the primaries. If I were in his position, I would probably choose someone close to the Clintons, like Wes Clark.

However, if Obama doesn’t want to tap someone from the Clinton circle, a number of other choices, including Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and John Edwards, would be ok by me.

If he wants an “old wise man,” I much prefer former Florida Senator Bob Graham to someone like former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn.

I am absolutely, implacably opposed to putting any Republican (such as Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel) on the Democratic ticket. The next president is going to appoint several Supreme Court judges, and I don’t want any conservative to have any chance of becoming president.

Make the case for the running mate of your choice in the comments.

UPDATE: Good discussion about the pros and cons of Biden on the ticket in the comment thread under this diary: Biden Drank Graham’s Milkshake: Veep Audition?

The leaders of the Sierra Club and United Steelworkers appeared in Cleveland on Friday with Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown to endorse Barack Obama for president.

The joint endorsement and accompanying press release emphasized Obama’s support for “a clean energy economy,” which would create jobs while protecting the environment.

It’s a welcome contrast to John McCain’s energy policy, which calls for investing $2 billion in so-called “clean coal” and constructing 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030.

The Sierra Club and United Steelworkers created the Blue Green Alliance in June 2006. The alliance has sought to draw attention to “economic opportunities that could come from a serious investment in renewable energy.”

This work is very important for the progressive movement. Too often the labor and environmental communities have found themselves on opposite sides of controversial issues. We saw that in Iowa earlier this year, when key labor groups backed plans to build a new coal-fired power plant near Marshalltown.

The full text of the Sierra Club’s press release on the Obama endorsement is after the jump. In addition to Obama’s energy policy, Sierra Club drew attention to:

-his opposition to further oil drilling in the Arctic Naitonal Wildlife Refuge;

-his opposition to storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada;

-his promise to undo many of George Bush’s bad executive orders on the environment;

-his support for more regulation of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs); and

-his efforts to reduce children’s exposure to lead.

The House of Representatives approved the so-called “compromise” on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that in fact gave the Republicans and the White House everything they wanted.

One of Iowa’s three Democratic representatives voted with the Republicans. Can you guess which one without peeking here at the roll call vote?

That’s right, Leonard Boswell voted with the Republicans.

Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack stuck with the majority of the House Democratic caucus and voted against this bill.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama came out against the immunity provision in the FISA bill today. His full statement on the bill is here, but the most important part seems to be this comment about the telecom immunity provision:

I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

Some people who follow this issue closely feel Obama’s statement didn’t go far enough. In particular, it is not clear whether “work in the Senate to remove this provision” would include supporting a filibuster of the bill.

In the good news column, Rob Hubler, Democratic candidate in the fifth district, sent the blogger Glenn Greenwald a strong statement opposing retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Here is a copy of that statement, which the Hubler campaign sent to me:

Dear Mr. Greenwald,

As  the Democratic nominee for Congress in Iowa’s Fifth Congressional District, I want you to know that I appreciate very much the initiative you  have taken to oppose and expose the FISA Amendments Act of  2008. This bill effectively guarantees retroactive immunity  for telecom companies that participated in the President’s illegal wiretap  program, and fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home.

If elected, I would vigorously oppose this measure, which would essentially  require the court to grant immunity, and authorize surveillance on citizens without adequate checks and balances to protect their  rights.

I  believe that the constitutional rights of everyday Americans are at issue  here, and full accountability is needed.  No President  should ever have unchecked power.

As  a member of Congress, I will support legislation that preserves appropriate  court review of all surveillance of U. S. citizens, and I will not vote for immunity for telecom companies.

Americans  in the U. S. with no connection to suspected terrorists should never have  their privacy abridged by an overzealous, unchecked executive  branch.

Sincerely,

Rob  L. Hubler