Apparently you can spend more than a million dollars on a wedding in Des Moines. I thought that level of absurdly conspicuous consumption was limited to places like Chicago or New York, but Cityview sets the record straight in an article on Des Moines extravagances.

Caterers and event planners describe cakes that cost more than $5,000 or take more than 30 hours to make. The article culminates with several paragraphs on a dinner for 14 friends that cost $25,000 “just in food and wine costs.” Many foods were flown in to Des Moines for the meal. My favorite example was vinegar that sells for $250 a liter, which the host requested because he “likes his foie gras glazed in it.”

Consider this an open thread to discuss ridiculous extravagance you have observed or heard about. For instance (this is a true story), one of my college friends attended a wedding reception where butternut squash soup was served featuring the couple’s initials written in heavy cream in every bowl.

IowaPolitics.com got a scoop from John McCain’s event in Des Moines yesterday:

Clive businessman Marty Parrish was escorted from Sen. John McCain’s town hall meeting by Des Moines police and members of the Secret Service after asking McCain if he had called his wife Cindy an expletive in 1992.

Parrish, an ordained Baptist minister who holds a master’s degree in political science, was questioned by Secret Service agents before being released. He was not charged in the incident. Parrish asked whether McCain called his wife Cindy an expletive related to the female anatomy, as has been alleged in the book “The Real McCain,” written by Dem strategist Cliff Schecter.

McCain’s response got him a round of applause from the crowd: “There’s people here who don’t respect that kind of language, so I’ll move on to the next questioner in the back.”

In an interview with IowaPolitics.com, Parrish said his intentions were simple in posing the question to McCain. The former Joe Biden campaign worker stressed he is very concerned about the Republican presidential nominee’s temperament.

“We have a man whose temper can get the best of him,” Parrish said. “What I am worried about is his temper.”

For background on the anecdote recounted in Schecter’s book, read this post at MyDD.

I’ve said before that the public needs to become aware of McCain’s anger management problem. Kudos to Parrish for asking a question none of the journalists assigned to McCain’s campaign would dare ask.

And just to show that no candidate is wrong 100 percent of the time, McCain made some sensible remarks about the farm bill yesterday.

A new study should give city officials new incentive to plant and preserve more trees in urban areas:

Children who live in tree-lined streets have lower rates of asthma, a New York-based study suggests.

Columbia University researchers found that asthma rates among children aged four and five fell by 25% for every extra 343 trees per square kilometre.

They believe more trees may aid air quality or simply encourage children to play outside, although they say the true reason for the finding is unclear.

The study appears in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

Hat tip to Natasha Chart, who put up a link to this article at Open Left.

Blog for Iowa published this important post from the Iowa Farmers Union about a new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists called CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations. Here are some key findings:

Misguided federal farm policies have encouraged the growth of massive confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, by shifting billions of dollars in environmental, health and economic costs to taxpayers and communities […].

“CAFOs aren’t the natural result of agricultural progress, nor are they the result of rational planning or market forces,” said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist in UCS’s Food and Environment Program and author of the report. “Ill-advised policies created them, and it will take new policies to replace them with more sustainable, environmentally friendly production methods.”

[…]

The report also details how other federal policies give CAFOs hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to address their pollution problems, which stem from the manure generated by thousands, if not tens of thousands, of animals confined in a small area. The report estimates that CAFOs have received $100 million in annual pollution prevention payments in recent years through the federal Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which was established by the 2002 Farm Bill.

“If CAFOs were forced to pay for the ripple effects of harm they have caused, they wouldn’t be dominating the U.S. meat industry like they are today,” said Margaret Mellon, director of UCS’s Food and Environment Program. “The good news is that we can institute new policies that support animal production methods that benefit society rather than harm it.”

Instead of favoring CAFOs, the report recommends that government policies provide incentives for modern production methods that benefit the environment, public health and rural communities. The report also shows that several smart alternative production methods can offer meat and dairy at costs comparable to CAFO products.

[…]

In addition to steering taxpayer dollars away from CAFOs, the report also urges Congress to enforce laws that encourage competition so alternative producers can get their meat and dairy to consumers as easily as CAFOs. Making CAFOs, rather than taxpayers, pay to prevent or clean up the pollution they create is also critical, Gurian-Sherman said.

Meanwhile, earlier this week the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production issued its final report on “Putting Meat on The Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America.” Click the link to find links to pdf files of the executive summary and the full report. The authors concluded that “The current industrial farm animal production (IFAP) system often poses unacceptable risks to public health, the environment and the welfare of the animals themselves […].”

After outlining the harm that industrial farm animal production does to public health, the environment, animal welfare and rural communities, the Pew commission issued six important recommendations:

   1. Ban the non-therapeutic use of antimicrobials in food animal production to reduce the risk of antimicrobial resistance to medically important antibiotics and other microbials.

   2. Implement a disease monitoring program for food animals to allow 48-hour trace-back of those animals through aspects of their production, in a fully integrated and robust national database.

   3. Treat IFAP as an industrial operation and implement a new system to deal with farm waste to replace the inflexible and broken system that exists today, to protect Americans from the adverse environmental and human health hazards of improperly handled IFAP waste.

   4. Phase out the most intensive and inhumane production practices within a decade to reduce the risk of IFAP to public health and improve animal wellbeing (i.e., gestation crates and battery cages).

   5. Federal and state laws need to be amended and enforced to provide a level playing field for producers when entering contracts with integrators.

   6. Increase funding for, expand and reform, animal agriculture research.

The Des Moines Register reported on Wednesday that some representatives of industrial agriculture allegedly tried to use financial leverage to influence the findings:

A Pew Commission report accuses some livestock interests of trying to disrupt a wide-ranging study of the industry by threatening to yank financing for scientists and universities.

The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production study released Tuesday called for a vast overhaul of the industry.

Advertisement

“While some agriculture representatives were recommending potential authors for the technical reports to commission staff, other industrial agriculture representatives were discourage those same authors from assisting us by threatening to withhold research funding for their college or university,” commission executive director Robert Martin wrote in the foreword of the report released after 2 1/2 years of study.

Martin didn’t detail those incidents in the report, and a spokesman declined to comment on the allegations.

[…]

The commission, which included key Iowans including the head of the University of Iowa College of Public Health, found that livestock industry powers have too much influence on how government regulates the industry. That presents too much of a public threat in the commission’s view.

The 15-member panel called for a range of actions industry groups have vehemently opposed, including local zoning of confinements, a ban on use of antibiotics as a growth enhancer and stiffer regulations on emissions on everything from manure application to how hogs are housed.

“We found significant influence by the industry at every turn: in academic research, agriculture policy development, governmental regulation, and enforcement,” the study said.

Industry pressure on scientists who study farm-related pollution has been a hot topic nationally in recent years and was detailed in a 2002 Des Moines Register report, “Ag Scientists Feel the Heat.”

Representatives of industrial agriculture have been whining that the Pew commission was biased against them from the beginning. They simply refuse to acknowledge reality when it comes to the drawbacks of CAFOs, routine use of antibiotics, and our aspects of our current food system.

It’s time to end the worst practices of CAFOs and the public policies that promote them. As the Union of Concerned Scientists points out, CAFOs would not be profitable if they had to pay for the hidden health and environmental costs of their operations.

It would be a terrible mistake for the Des Moines school board to go down the path outlined in the Des Moines Register on Friday:

Fine print in a new statewide election law gives the Des Moines school board the option to cut short controversial member Jon Narcisse’s three-year term, a move he says would be “an assault against democracy.”

[…]

Eric Tabor, chief of staff for the Iowa attorney general’s office, said the Legislature has the authority to alter school board terms. Secretary of State Michael Mauro said there was “absolutely, unequivocally, no intent to put any board member in any district in jeopardy.”

Boards are instructed to consider the number of votes board members received in the last election when they decide how to meet the law’s requirements. Patty Link won 4,021 votes and Narcisse 3,029 in September.

[…]

Phil Roeder, spokesman for the district, said a few options would comply with the law:

– Shorten Narcisse’s and Link’s terms by one year, with re-election in 2009.

– Decrease Narcisse’s term and increase Link’s by one year, with re-election in 2009 and 2011, respectively.

– Alter the 2008 election terms so that one or two members are elected to one-year terms; Narcisse and Link would then be up for re-election in 2009 and 2011, respectively, or both in 2011.

I don’t care what the law allows them to do–any solution that appears to favor Link (a well-connected and well-liked white woman) over Narcisse (an outspoken critic of district policies who is also the only African American on the board CORRECTION: Teree Caldwell-Johnson, who is African-American, also serves on the Des Moines school board) would be a disaster.

If the goal is to get Narcisse off the board sooner, I doubt making him into a martyr is going to achieve that. He was elected precisely because of his criticism of past leadership on the school board and in the district administration.

I know people involved in the Save & Support Our Schools organization who strongly backed Narcisse’s candidacy. They felt that too many Des Moines school board members had failed to ask tough questions of superintendent Eric Witherspoon over the years. (The current superintendent, Nancy Sebring, seems to be more responsive to community concerns.)

The school board should find a way to implement this new law without appearing to single out Narcisse for punishment.  

Joe Trippi wrote an interesting piece for Campaigns and Elections called “What I Should Have Told John Edwards.”

Trippi regrets that when Edwards asked him if he should drop out of the presidential race, he

didn’t go with my gut.

I didn’t tell him what I should have told him: That I had this feeling that if he stayed in the race he would win 300 or so delegates by Super Tuesday and have maybe a one-in-five chance of forcing a brokered convention. That there was a path ahead that would be extremely painful, but could very well put him and his causes at the top of the Democratic agenda. And that in politics anything can happen-even the possibility that in an open convention with multiple ballots an embattled and exhausted party would turn to him as their nominee. I should have closed my eyes to the pain I saw around me on the campaign bus, including my own. I should have told him emphatically that he should stay in. My regret that I did not do so-that I let John Edwards down-grows with every day that the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continues.

[…]

It was a longshot, to be sure, but there remained the chance of a three-way battle going all the way to the convention. I thought we could make a big dent in Ohio by appealing to middle-class working people. The same in places like Kansas, Colorado and the Dakotas. It was possible to make those a dead-heat for all three candidates in terms of delegate wins. And today, as I write this, I realize we might have had as many as 500 delegates heading into Pennsylvania and North Carolina, two states that would probably be strong for Edwards.

That would mean Edwards, Obama and Clinton would go into the convention without any of them close to sealing the nomination. You would have had months of Obama and Clinton banging away at each other, with Edwards able to come across to weary Democrats as a welcome, fresh face. You’d have the electability argument begin to play to Edwards’ advantage, since he always did well against McCain in polling. These possibilities and more played through my mind.

Let me make clear that in January, I was 100 percent behind Edwards staying in the race until the convention, even though it was obvious after the New Hampshire primary that his chance of becoming the nominee was virtually zero.

I wrote front-page diaries for the national blog MyDD on Ten Reasons for Sticking with John Edwards and why all Democrats should be glad to see Edwards stay in the race. That second piece included the following passage:

The bottom line for me is that Edwards is talking about the issues in a way that Clinton and Obama never have and never will. In the debates, his campaign rallies, and his television advertisements, he is calling attention to problems that the corporate media filter out all too often.

Many Obama supporters are frustrated that Edwards has not dropped out of the race and endorsed their candidate. They think he is only splitting the anti-Hillary vote.

I think everyone should be happy that Edwards will hang in there, even though others are currently favored to win the nomination. I believe that the Republican hate machine will not unload on Clinton or Obama until they are certain that Edwards is out of the race. Since Obama has not yet faced tough scrutiny from the media, it is all the more important for Edwards to stay in the mix.

Since January the Democratic primary race has degenerated into identity politics and personal attacks, with little focus on issues Edwards brought to the table, like the excesses of corporate power.

Nor has his departure brought the Democratic contest to a rapid conclusion. When Edwards was on one of the talk shows in late March (I think it was Leno), he said that when he dropped out, he expected that the Democratic nominee would have been decided by mid-March. So quitting the race didn’t achieve the goal he had in mind.

In my heart, like Trippi, I feel disappointed that Edwards did not stay in for the duration. If he had been there for the debates, the moderators might have asked a few more substantive questions, or the Clinton and Obama campaigns might have altered their own strategies.

On the other hand, I doubt very much that given the media environment of late January, Edwards could have won 300 delegates on Super Tuesday, as Trippi suggests. If he had won fewer than 100 delegates, the pressure on him to drop out would have been so overwhelming (with major donors and superdelegates jumping ship) that I doubt he would have had a very good showing in Ohio on March 4.

My head tells me that one way or another, the media and the Democratic power-brokers would have been able to force Edwards out long before the primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina.

What do you think? Leaving aside whether you think Edwards had any chance of winning the nomination at a brokered convention, do you think the Democratic Party and our eventual nominee would have been better served by having him stay in the race longer?

Got this press release from Ed Fallon’s campaign today:

Fallon Receives PCCI-A Endorsement

Thursday, May 1, 2008 (3:30 PM CDT) – Ed Fallon today announced his endorsement by the Progressive Coalition of Central Iowa – Action (PCCI-A). Board President Vern Naffier notified Fallon today that the board of PCCI-A had voted unanimously to support him in his bid to unseat incumbent Congressman Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s Third District.

Fallon expressed his gratitude for the endorsement, saying, “I’m grateful to have the support of PCCI-A. These folks are community activists who have been working on issues that have always been a focus of my own political and community involvement.”

Earlier in the campaign, one of PCCI-A’s member organizations, STAR*PAC, also endorsed Fallon’s candidacy.

PCCI-A is a 501(c)(5) corporation that exists separately from PCCI, a 501(c)(3) organization. Naffier acknowledged that PCCI-A would not be making a financial contribution, as Fallon does not accept contributions from PACs and paid lobbyists.

Even if Fallon took money from PACs, the value of an endorsement like this can’t be measured in dollars.

It’s obvious that Congressman Leonard Boswell will be able to outspend Fallon in the traditional paid media, and it seems unlikely that Boswell will take a chance and debate Fallon on the issues.

Fallon’s best chance is to mobilize large numbers of progressive foot-soldiers, such as those in PCCI-A, to get out the vote for him. These people are well-known in their neighborhoods and have large social networks.

I don’t expect a very high turnout on June 3. This race is winnable for Fallon with enough people pounding the pavement for him.

There’s a lot going on over the next few days in addition to tulip time in Pella (May 1 to May 3). Please put up a comment in this thread if you know of anything else happening this weekend that I’ve left out.

Thursday, May 1:

One Iowa presents May Day Mayhem–Free Food, Cheap Drinks with other LGBT and progressive professionals. Special guest Evan Wolfson from Freedom to Marry. Star Bar, 2811 Ingersoll in Des Moines, from 5 pm to 7 pm. Light appetizers, cash bar, and a chance to mingle with other LGBTA Professionals. Please RSVP by April 30th (288-4019).

Ed Fallon will be at Green Drinks, Saints Rest Cafe, 919 Broad St. in Grinnell, beginning at 7 pm

Friday, May 2:

Ed Fallon will be at the Eastside Senior Center, 1231 E. 26th St. in Des Moines, beginning at 11:45 am

Comedian Jeff Kreisler will do a show for the Polk County Democrats, Val Air Ballroom, 301 Ashworth Road, West Des Moines. Dinner will be served at 5:30 P.M., program begins at 6:30 P.M. Cash bar available. Regular tickets – $25.00 per person (Dinner and show only) 5:30 P.M. Host Reception with Elected Officials and Jeff Kreisler – $75.00 per person (includes dinner and drink tickets). Tickets are available by calling 515-285-1800; for $27.50 at the Val Air box office or through any Ticketmaster outlet. Senator Tom Harkin will also be there.

Saturday, May 3:

Iowa Citizen Action Network 2008 annual convention, 10 am to 5 pm at the Hilton Garden Inn, 8600 North Park Drive in Johnston (suburb of Des Moines). Jim Hightower will be the keynote speaker. More details about the day’s workshops are after the jump, or you can see a flier for this event at

http://www.iowacan.org/ICANCON…

Iowa Corridor’s second annual Hike to Help Refugees in Iowa City (more details are after the jump)

Maifest parade in the Amana Colonies, starting at 10 am (Ed Fallon will be there)

I-RENEW is hosting a tour of the Clipper Turbine Works, the largest wind turbine manufacturer in the U.S., in Cedar Rapids at 1 pm. At 3 pm, Brian Crowe from Iowa’s Office of Energy Independence will speak about the agency’s activities at the Coffee Talk Café, located off Kirkwood Avenue down the road from Clipper. More details about these events are after the jump.

An Edwards supporter I’m still in touch with online brought these links to my attention, and I felt they were worth sharing. A few weeks ago, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appeared at a “Compassion Forum” and answered some questions about God and prayer backstage.

The Christian Broadcasting Network’s website has some transcripts and audio clips. Here is

Obama answering the question, “In the quiet moments of your day, what do you pray for?” (click through for the audio link)

“I pray throughout the day but at night before I go to bed I have a fairly simple prayer. I ask that God forgives me for my sins. I thank him for all that he has given me especially my family which is a great treasure. I ask that he give peace to people in need and people in trouble and I ask that he makes me an instrument of his will. I figure that covers a lot of ground.”

That’s a good prayer, and it certainly does cover a lot of ground.

I was blown away by Hillary’s response to the question, “When you stand before God, what might a question be that you’ll ask Him?” (this is an excerpt, click through for the whole text):

I would ask how could a loving God have let so much despair, suffering and pain be part of the human experience? What were you teaching us? What were you modeling for us? We know that you had your son suffer excruciatingly and he died for us and I can’t thank you enough for that gift but so many people who seem so innocent have also suffered so much. Was there any point at which you thought you could perhaps just you know, reach out and just lessen it a little or did you expect us to do that? Was that our job? Is that what we were called to do with the gifts that you gave onto us?”

All I can say is, I would like to be there when God answers those questions.

Speaking of religion and politics, I have avoided writing about Reverend Jeremiah Wright, because I don’t feel I have anything unique to add to the discussion.

Obviously, I don’t believe Obama agrees with the more offensive comments Wright has made. On the contrary, this conjecture by Obama supporter Matthew Yglesias has the ring of truth for me:

it’ll hurt him electorally because Obama’s going to have a hard time explaining that I take to be the truth, namely that his relationship with Trinity has been a bit cynical from the beginning. After all, before Obama was a half-black guy running in a mostly white country he was a half-white guy running in a mostly black neighborhood. At that time, associating with a very large, influential, local church with black nationalist overtones was a clear political asset (it’s also clear in his book that it made him, personally, feel “blacker” to belong to a slightly kitschy black church). Since emerging onto a larger stage, it’s been the reverse and Obama’s consistently sought to distance himself from Wright, disinviting him from his campaign’s launch, analogizing him to a crazy uncle who you love but don’t listen to, etc.

So I am not the least bit worried that Obama shares Wright’s views.

I do get depressed thinking about the endless attack ads that will feature Wright’s inflammatory remarks (juxtaposed with Obama not putting his hand over his heart and Michelle Obama saying this is the first time in her adult life she’s been proud to be an American). It fits so well with the typical Republican playbook against Democrats: brand them as extremist and unpatriotic.

At least this has come out in the spring, rather than after Labor Day, when it could have done the most damage to our likely presidential nominee. On the other hand, I’m annoyed that Obama was able to keep Reverend Wright under wraps until after most of the states had voted.

If Wright had been a household name six months ago, I do not believe Obama would have won the Iowa caucuses.

When I think of all the Obama supporters and leaners who told me last year that John Edwards was unelectable because he has a big house and got an expensive haircut, I just shake my head. Some people imagined that Obama’s media honeymoon would never end, and the Republicans wouldn’t be able to dig up anything damaging about him.

UPDATE: My husband and I loved Jon Stewart’s segment on the media’s coverage of Reverend Wright during The Daily Show on Wednesday. Catch the rerun on Thursday if you can.

A envelope from the Boswell campaign arrived in the mail today. Inside was a letter from Al Gore asking me to donate $20.00 to Boswell’s campaign, symbolizing the 2000 election “when Leonard stood by my side”. The text was identical to a recent e-mail Gore sent out on Boswell’s behalf, which I reproduced at the end of this post.

Unlike Matt Stoller, who is mad that Gore is helping Boswell’s campaign, I can’t fault him for getting involved. It won’t change the minds of many Gore voters like myself, who favor Fallon, but it might activate other Gore supporters who are unreliable primary voters.

Frankly, I’m more annoyed at Gore for sitting out this presidential election. He would have been a much better candidate, and probably a much better president, than either Hillary or Obama.  

But what’s done is done.

Getting back to the third district primary, I received a copy of an e-mail sent out by Wesley Clark’s political action committee, WesPAC, which solicits donations for the Congressional campaigns of three veterans, including Boswell. Here are the relevant portions of that e-mail:

Dear [Recipient],

We need veterans like Ashwin Madia, Tim Walz, and Leonard Boswell in Congress to lead us out of Iraq  and to support our troops. Click  here to donate to their campaigns today!

It’s no surprise that a war veteran, Senator Jim Webb,  has led the fight in expanding the GI Bill to give our troops the  education benefits they were promised. Those who have worn the uniform know first-hand how much our troops have sacrificed and what it takes to  support members of the armed forces.

That’s why it was critical our community helped elect  Jim Webb in 2006, and it’s also the reason I’m backing three veterans who  are running for Congress this fall. Though 30,000 Americans have signed a  petition in support of Senator Webb’s GI Bill, our opponents are already  weakening the bill because it is too “generous” for our troops.  We need more veterans in Congress who will help bring our soldiers home  from Iraq and stand up for those who have defended our nation.

Join me and support veteran candidates Ashwin  Madia, Tim Walz, and Leonard Boswell by donating to their campaigns  today!

[…]

Leonard  Boswell

In 2006, WesPAC helped Leonard Boswell fight off a  “swiftboat” attempt on him in Iowa, and our efforts helped  re-elect Leonard. As a 20-year veteran of the Army, he too supports an  expanded GI Bill for our veterans and has pushed for increases in funding  for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

We can’t afford to lose a true American hero like  Leonard in Congress, and we can’t take it for granted that the right-wing  won’t smear him again this November. Help re-elect Congressman Boswell  by donating to his campaign now!

http://www.actblue.com/page/3vets

The insight of those who serve in the armed forces is  too often lost in our nation’s dialogue about foreign policy, health  care, education, and veterans issues. With your support, we’ll strengthen  the voices of those who have risked their lives for our country by sending 3 veterans to Congress in 2008.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Wes Clark

I wish Boswell or one of his high-profile supporters would defend the Congressional votes that prompted Ed Fallon to run in this primary. But from the incumbent’s perspective, the less said about that, the better.

John McCain is coming to Des Moines on Thursday, and the Iowa Democratic Party and Moveon.Org are planning public events to mark the occasion. This is from an e-mail the IDP sent out this week:

Democratic Activists are needed to help welcome John McCain to Des Moines This Thursday!

Wednesday Night:

Sign Making/Pizza Party to help make all the signs needed for Thursday’s big event. This will be from 6:00 PM-8:00PM at 420 Watson Powell, Des Moines IA, 50309.

Thursday:

Thursday we will be staging a counter protest to McCain’s visit; please join us at 12:30 PM at the IDP office, 420 Watson Powell, Des Moines IA, 50309, where we will meet as a group and then proceed over to make our voices heard across the street!

If available please contact Jeff Perry at jperry AT iowademocrats.org or 515-974-1703.

Moveon.Org sent this e-mail out as well:

With the Obama-Clinton primary still underway, John McCain has largely gotten a free ride in the media. He’s coming to Des Moines on Thursday, hoping to get lots of fluff media coverage. Well, we’re not going to let that happen.

MoveOn members in your area will be putting on a fun event called The Bush-McCain Challenge to make sure local voters and the media know that a McCain presidency would equal Bush’s third term. We’ll have a carnival-style table where people can answer questions and win prizes if they can tell the difference between Bush and McCain’s stances on issues. Media will be invited to come.

Can you help out at The Bush-McCain Challenge table this Thursday between 12:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m.? It will be fun, and the more the merrier. Event details and RSVP link are here:

WHAT: The Bush-McCain Challenge in Cleveland

WHERE: 501 Grand Avenue, across from the Convention Complex, Des Moines, IA, 50310

WHEN: Thursday, May 1 from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.

RSVP: http://pol.moveon.org/event/ev…

We’ll supply the questions and decorations. We need your help to ask the questions at the table, or to hand out flyers to people walking by-promoting the challenge. Local media will be invited and national media who fly around with McCain will receive photos and local news clips of the event to incorporate into their reporting. We’ll also put the best clips from these events around the nation on YouTube.

We saw the impact of regular people fighting back locally during President Bush’s Social Security privatization tour.1 In town after town, we and coalition partners matched or beat Bush’s media coverage by planning events surrounding his local visit that showed why he was wrong.

The Bush-McCain Challenge will be a lot of fun. Together, we’ll make sure voters realize that electing McCain would, in effect, be voting for Bush’s third term.

We hope you can join us for this event. Thanks for all you do.

-Adam G., Lenore, Anna, Noah, Ilyse and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team

 Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

1. Video of pushback events held during President Bush’s Social Security privatization tour

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=742&…

Incidentally, if you are a Moveon.Org member but are not a fan of Barack Obama, you can opt out of their Obama-related action e-mails and still receive their other e-mails. I appreciate that!

I’ll have more to say on this later tonight, but for now I’m posting the press release I just got from the Iowa Environmental Council.

For Immediate Release: April 30, 2008

IUB Approves Dirty Coal Plant for Marshalltown

The Iowa Utilities Board said “yes,” with conditions, Wednesday to a proposal by Alliant Energy to build a 630 to 660 megawatt coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown, Iowa.

“We are disappointed that the Iowa Utilities Board and Alliant Energy are moving Iowa’s energy policy backwards with a dirty coal plant. This coal plant is simply the wrong choice for Iowa’s economy and our environment. When other states are saying no to coal plants, Iowa is risking its future as a renewable energy leader by betting on this imported and outdated energy source,” said Nathaniel Baer, energy program director for the Iowa Environmental Council.

Clean air advocates say mercury, carbon and other air pollutants still don’t have to be Iowa’s legacy as today’s IUB decision is only a first step in a decision-making process over this proposal, which includes additional decisions by the Board and by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

The Iowa Environmental Council, Community Energy Solutions, Iowa Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, Iowa Farmers Union and Iowa Renewable Energy Association were represented by the public interest law firm Plains Justice in a proceeding at the Iowa Utilities Board regarding approval of the proposal. In briefs and in testimony before the IUB, Plains Justice maintained that clean energy sources like wind and energy efficiency could meet the energy needs of Iowa consumers at a lower cost, and with considerably less environmental impact, than the proposed coal plant.

The IUB approval was conditional: Three conditions must be met as follows…

1.      The coal plant must co-fire five percent biomass within the first two years of the plant’s operation, and 10 percent biomass must be co-fired by the fifth year of operation.

2.      Alliant’s energy mix must include 10 percent renewable energy by 2013 and increase one percent each year for the following 15 years, to reach a total renewable energy portfolio of  25 percent by 2028.

3.      The Iowa Utilities Board will have authority to require Alliant to install carbon capture and sequestration technology at the plant when it becomes feasible.

“Despite the final decision, we appreciate the Board’s thorough consideration of the many risks that this proposal brings. The Board’s three conditions for use of biomass, renewable energy, and future carbon capture technology may help to offset some of these significant risks, but we’ll need to look at these conditions in more detail. We look forward to being engaged in the coming steps of this process,” said Baer.

n  End

For interviews, call Nathaniel Baer, 515-244-1194, extension 206.

I posted this around the blogosphere on Monday, but forgot to cross-post here. -desmoinesdem

Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign has been giving the incumbent an image makeover as the June 3 primary approaches.

I learned from direct-mail pieces this month that Boswell is “Taking on George Bush for the Changes We Need,” as well as “working to bring the troops home every day” and “Taking on powerful interests” to deliver health care to all Iowans.

These campaign communications bring to mind Ralph Waldo Emerson’s quote: “What you do shouts so loudly in my ears I cannot hear what you say.”

Progressive Kick has created a website that shows in quite an entertaining way what Boswell has been doing during his six terms in Congress. Let’s just say he hasn’t been much of a crusader against powerful interests.

Join me after the jump for more.

The Iowa Utilities Board meets this morning to decide whether to approve a new coal-fired power plant in Marshalltown.

I’ve written before about how our state should focus on energy efficiency, conservation and new electricity generation through renewable sources, rather than expanding the use of coal, which has to be imported into Iowa and carries with it huge environmental and public-health costs.

The websites of the Iowa Environmental Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists explain why we should not increase our dependence on fossil fuels, especially coal.

The Iowa Medical Society and other public-health advocates have also made a strong case against the proposed coal-fired plants in Marshalltown and Waterloo. This op-ed piece by Maureen McCue explains why:

Each proposed coal plant would likely emit around 100 pounds of mercury a year, much of which would end up in our lakes and streams, and eventually, our bodies. The Environmental Protection Agency states that “on balance, mercury from coal-fired utilities is the hazardous air pollutant of greatest potential public-health concern.”

In expressing their concern about coal-fired power plants, Texas’ Catholic bishops noted that mercury poses a particular risk to “unborn life.” Thousands of women of child-bearing age have elevated levels of toxic mercury in their blood, which could lead to reduced IQ and neurologic impairment in their children.

Many of Iowa’s waterways, including parts of the Cedar, Upper Iowa and Mississippi rivers have fish-consumption advisories warning Iowans not to eat more than one meal a week because of elevated mercury levels. The Idaho governor, a Republican, banned coal plants in his state because “the health implications of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants far outweigh any economic benefits.”

[…]

The EPA’s own scientific advisory board, the American Medical Association, the American Lung Association and other health organizations have challenged current air-quality standards, such as those for fine-particulate matter, as insufficient to protect public health. Coal plants, which contribute to ozone and smog, are responsible for hundreds of premature deaths a year, increasing asthma hospitalizations, other respiratory ailments and cardiac disease.

The American Academy of Pediatrics noted that young children are particularly susceptible because their lungs aren’t fully formed and they spend a greater percentage of time outdoors.

The Des Moines Register’s editorial board came out against the coal-fired plant in Marshalltown but has been printing guest opinion pieces and letters to the editor on both sides.

Links to many of the Des Moines Register’s editorials and op-ed pieces for or against the Marshalltown plant can be found by clicking here (there’s a “related stories” bar on the right-hand side of the screen).

I’ve noticed that supporters of this project are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, local supporters and representatives of organized labor talk about how many jobs will be created by the construction and operation of the new plant.

On the other hand, supporters say not to worry about increased greenhouse gas emissions from the new plant, because once it is built, Alliant will take offline or renovate older, less efficient facilities. If economic gains in Marshalltown come at the expense of other communities where Allliant facilities are located, doesn’t that suggest that Iowa’s economy on the whole would not benefit from this plant?

Here’s hoping the Iowa Utilities Board will reject the proposal. The rumor mill says it will be a 2-1 decision, with John Norris casting the decisive vote one way or another.

Looks like the backers of the Polk County Courthouse renovation plan needed to do a better job of getting supporters to vote by absentee ballot:

A $132 million plan to renovate the Polk County Courthouse and build an eight-story annex next door suffered a double-digit loss today at the polls.

The result was a victory for anti-tax campaigners, who said the proposal would burden property owners during uncertain economic times.

Voters, 56.7 percent to 43.3 percent, ultimately rejected supporters’ arguments that the bond issue represented an urgent need for a courthouse some consider cramped, outdated and unsafe. […]

The proposal was projected to add $23.24 to the annual property tax bill on a home valued at $100,000. The borrow-and-build plan needed 60 percent approval to pass. The measure failed 17,603 to 13,453.

Voter turnout – 31,056, or 11 percent – was lower than some early predictions today. More than 80 percent of the 2,499 absentee ballot voters sided with the courthouse proposal.

They need to start holding referenda on the same date as regularly scheduled elections. I don’t see why this vote couldn’t have been held on June 3, when many more voters in Polk County are likely to be voting in third Congressional district primary.

Although this vote wasn’t as lopsided as last summer’s “Destiny” tax proposal vote, which only got 15 percent approval, it again highlights the lack of public trust in county officials to borrow and spend our money wisely. I don’t have an answer for how to deal with this. I think multiple poor decisions by county officials over a number of years have contributed to the problem.

Meanwhile, I’m afraid it’s only a matter of time before some big tragedy occurs due to the overcrowded conditions at the Polk County Courthouse.    

A number of signs indicate that Rastetter has been be quietly gearing up for a campaign for quite awhile. His involvement in Iowa Future Fund, the shady 501(c)(4) that ran anti-Culver ads, was my first clue. (I first posted about Rastetter and IFF/IPP at Bleeding Heartland here.)

Another clue was that someone privately registered “brucerastetter.com” and “brucerastetter.org” in early December 2007. 

An even bigger clue was that Rastetter hired Nicholas T. “Nick” Ryan in January 2007. Ryan had just come off a stint as campaign manager for Jim Nussle's failed gubernatorial bid.

Bruce Rastetter is CEO of  Hawkeye Energy Holdings, Iowa's largest ethanol producer and the third largest in the nation. In September, the Cyclone Conservative commented that “a Rastetter candidacy would also be attractive because Rastetter would carry a tremendous amount of gravitas on renewable fuels and agriculture issues.”

CC also speculated that Rastetter's $1.75 million gift to Iowa State University was a political ploy to garner favorable publicity for Rastetter, the candidate. Sounds plausible to me.

If Rastetter runs, Iowa Dems can expect an enormous amount of money to be poured into his campaign, both on and off the books. The  probable reason for the secrecy about Rastetter's intentions is to catch Tom Harkin and Iowa Dems off guard about how stiff Harkin's competition will be in terms of the candidate and money.

Richard O. Jacobson, founder of Jacobson Companies, is chairman of Hawkeye Energy. Jacobson kicked in $50k to Nussle in '06.

Rastetter is very close to Peter M. Castleman, chairman of J. H. Whitney & Company, a private equity firm based in Connecticut. Rastetter is also linked to Whitney partner, Russell Stidololph, through Altenergy LLC. Nick Ryan uses nryan@alternergyllc.com. 

Thomas H. Lee Partners, a Boston private equity firm, has a majority stake in Hawkeye Energy. Expect financial support for Rastetter from the THL partners.

At one point, Rastetter and his partners at J. H. Whitney planned to make a $200 million investment in Iowa wind farms but not much as been mentioned about it recently. I am particularly curious about the wind farms because I read yesterday that T. Boone Pickens is investing $10 billion to create a chain of wind farms that stretches from Texas through the Great Plains. 

If Pickens is behind Rastetter, Iowa Dems are in big trouble. In 2004, Pickens contributed $1 milion to Swift Boat Vets and $2.5 million to Progress For America, another 527, that raised $48 million. The DCI Group, the premier Republican slime shop, was behind PFA.  

I strongly suspect that Iowan, Brian Kennedy, is managing Iowa Future Fund/Iowa Progress Project. Kennedy, a DCI Group exec, is co-founder of PFA. More on the link between the DCI Group, the Iowa Future Fund and its affiliate, the American Future Fund here.

Kennedy made a failed primary bid for an Iowan congressional seat in 2006. He is also the former chairman of the Iowa Republican Party.   

The brucerastetter.com website lists 400 Locust Street, Suite 330, Des Moines, IA 50309 as its address. I checked the online phonebook and couldn't find an organization specifically listed in Suite 330 but I did find Summit Capital Group at Suite 480.

Summit Capital, a Rastetter company, is the one that employs Nick Ryan. Although Ryan claimed he was first employed by Summit Capital in January 2007, Summit Capital was only registered with the Iowa Secretary of State on February 21, 2007.

The Arag Group, curiously enough, is also listed at 400 Locust St, Suite 480.

That's it for me and Bruce Rastetter for the moment but first a question. If I am right about Rastetter running, did Rastetter violate any campaign laws by raising money without declaring his candidacy? Me, I'd go after Rastetter with a chainsaw if I were an Iowa Dem.

(Crossposted at TPM Cafe)  

Update: As senateguru noted in the comments, the deadline to register for the June senate primary has passed. But let's take a look at the candidates who did register: George S. Eichhorn, Christopher Reed and Steve Rathje.

Steve Rathje is the only candidate to register his campaign committee with the FEC. Since he registered in September 2005, he has raised $123k which came mostly from relatives, friends and Rathje personally. At 3/31/08, Rathje had a whopping $7k in cash on hand.

Compare Rathje's fundraising to that of Harkin's 2002 opponent, Greg Ganske. At 3/31/02, Ganske had $1.3 million in cash on hand and had spent $800k in the first quarter of 2002 alone. Ganske ultimately spent a total of $5 million vs Harkin's $8 million.

Interesting that Rathje's website is on the National Republican Party's server of choice, Smartech. Smartech was host to the off-record email accounts of many White House staffers and many of the so-called “missing” emails went through Smartech's servers.

Conventional Iowa wisdom is that the Republicans won't run a strong candidate against Harkin but this field of candidates is so pathetic, it lends strength to my argument that Rastetter could very well make a surprise run. I just don't know enough about election law to know if it is doable.  What if all three primary candidates dropped out?

If anyone can tell me more about Harkin's likely opponent, I'd appreciate it. I'd appreciate it even more if anyone knows how the prospective candidate will raise a few million bucks to run a respectable race.   

I wrote last week that people should avoid drinking tap water out of plastic bottles, because safer alternatives are available.

Dawn Sagario wrote a piece for the Des Moines Register about growing concerns surrounding the presence of bisphenol-A (BPA) in baby bottles:

Looking at studies done on animals, a federal report released earlier this month found “some concern” that exposure of fetuses, infants and children to low levels of BPA during development “can cause changes in behavior and the brain, prostate gland, mammary gland and the age at which females attain puberty.”

Sagario writes about how parents and some retailers are taking steps to reduce babies’ exposure to BPA, which is good to know.

I was disappointed to read this passage in the article, however:

But Sam Beattie, food safety specialist with Iowa State University Extension, said people shouldn’t be tossing those plastic bottles just yet.

“Should people be concerned? No,” said Beattie, who is also an assistant professor in food science and human nutrition at Iowa State. “There has been no direct correlation associated with consumption of BPA to any human malady.”

Beattie said the amounts of BPA given to animals in studies is more concentrated than the amounts to which humans are exposed.

Most people already have BPA in their systems. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found BPA in 93 percent of more than 2,500 urine samples from people ages 6 and older.

Beattie said he’s been drinking out of polycarbonate water bottles for 30 years, and he’ll continue to do so.

I’m guessing that Professor Beattie is not getting 100 percent of his caloric intake via plastic bottles, like millions of bottle-fed infants are.

Also, I doubt that Beattie is heating up all of his food and drink in those plastic bottles. Bottle-fed infants have all or most of their meals reheated in the plastic, which can increase the amount of hormone-disrupting chemicals that leach out.

As an adult, Beattie is no longer at risk for going through early puberty. But think about the babies who are drinking from plastic bottles every day.

It makes sense to be on the safe side and use glass baby bottles, or at least plastic bottles that do not contain BPA.

A final word of advice for parents who exclusively bottle-feed, or whose babies sometimes drink breast milk from bottles: this page has tips for bottle-feeding techniques that help promote a secure attachment with your baby. The gist is that you mimic certain aspects of breastfeeding (switching sides, making skin-to-skin contact and eye contact, always holding the baby while feeding) when giving the baby a bottle.

The conservative pundits who favored Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson for president are fully on board with John McCain, but he still has a big problem with other elements of the conservative base.

Exhibit A: the results from the GOP primary in Pennsylvania last week. More than two months after it became clear that McCain would be the GOP nominee, he gained just under 73 percent of the vote from Pennsylvania Republicans. Ron Paul got almost 16 percent (more than 128,000 votes), and Mike Huckabee got about 11 percent (more than 91,000 votes).

Think about that. More than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania went to the trouble of voting for someone other than McCain last Tuesday.

McCain did the worst in conservative counties where Republicans need to run up big margins to have any hope of winning statewide in Pennsylvania:

Mr. McCain’s worst showing was in Juniata County, near the center of the state. He received only about 59 percent of the vote, while Mr. Paul took nearly 28 percent. In 2004, President Bush won Juniata with 72 percent of the vote.

Mr. Bush had his biggest win that year in southern Fulton County, with 76 percent of the vote. Mr. McCain picked up 71 percent there, but Mr. Huckabee had 21 percent, his highest percentage in the state.

The conservative Washington Times has more bad news for McCain:

The McCain campaign has said it is on the same timeline for uniting the Republican Party as then-Gov. George W. Bush in 2000. In that year, Mr. Bush won 73 percent of the Republican vote in Pennsylvania’s primary, held April 4. His biggest challenger was McCain himself, who won 23 percent, despite having dropped out of the campaign weeks earlier.

But McCain was a far more imposing figure in 2000 than Paul and Huckabee were in 2008, and McCain has also had more time before Pennsylvania to consolidate his lead than Bush had in 2000. To continue to post less-than-dominant showings will only prolong talk that McCain has more work to do within his own party.

And to truly match Bush’s 2000 performance may be out of the question for McCain. Out of 18.5 million votes cast in the primaries so far he has won 43.2 percent. By contrast, Bush finished 2000 with 62 percent of the Republican primary vote.

Then I learned from this diary by sarahlane that Ron Paul says he doesn’t plan to campaign for McCain, and Paul supporters outnumbered McCain supporters at the Nevada Republican Party’s state convention last weekend.

Finally, the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch has filed a complaint against McCain with the Federal Elections Commission. If you’re too young to remember Judicial Watch, this group repeatedly attacked Bill Clinton’s administration in the 1990s.

Click the link to read the MyDD post by Jonathan Singer. Judicial Watch’s FEC complaint relates to a possibly illegal in-kind contribution from a foreign national to McCain’s campaign.

As I’ve mentioned before, prominent bloggers have filed a separate FEC complaint relating to McCain’s failure to abide by the spending limits imposed on candidates who agree to take public matching funds during the presidential primaries.

Buried at the end of a detailed post on the dueling delegate counts provided by the Clinton and Obama campaigns, Chris Bowers put forward a great idea for a Michigan/Florida compromise:

If I were in charge, I would seat Florida’s pledged delegates as is, and seat the pledged delegates from Michigan Clinton 73-55 Obama. From that point, I would strip both states of their superdelegates. This way, the voters of the two states are not punished, but the superdelegates who are responsible putting both states in this mess are. I actually think that this should become the standard punishment for states that flout the primary calendar: keep the pledged delegates, but strip the superdelegates with no possibility of reinstatement. I also really like the idea of superdelegates whining that they should be seated at the convention. That would be an hilarious press conference.

I have written before that it would be suicide for Obama to go into the general election campaign having argued for ignoring the primary votes in Michigan and Florida. I was open to a revote, but the Obama campaign made sure that didn’t happen in either state. Bowers’ idea makes a lot of sense to me. Rank and file voters should not be punished for the screwups of party leaders.

Meanwhile, JedReport put up a good diary at Daily Kos blaming the superdelegates for prolonging the primary election campaign.  

I think the extended race is on balance good for the Democrats, because voters are being energized all over the country (click here to read about the surge in Democratic voter registration in Oregon).

But if you’re an Obama supporter who’s frustrated that the race continues, JedReport’s diary indicates that your anger at the Clinton campaign or the media is misplaced. The superdelegates could have brought down the curtain on this race two months ago, but they have stood on the sidelines.

My only quibble with JedReport is that the pledged delegate count, which he thinks should guide the superdelegates’ decision, does not necessarily reflect the will of the people.

So far there have been at least two states (NV and TX) where Obama emerged with more pledged delegates despite having fewer people turn out to support him.

Also, the caucus systems in many states produced lopsided delegate counts that (in my view) do not reflect the will of the voters. Does anyone really think that Minnesota Democrats would have favored Obama over Hillary by a 2-1 margin in a primary?

Not only that, one caucus-goer in Wyoming had as much influence over the pledged delegate race as 19 primary voters in California (here is the link).

I’m for changing the system to ban caucuses for purposes of presidential candidate selection. Also, I would want to change the way pledged delegates are allocated so that no candidate could lose the popular vote in a state while winning the pledged delegate count.

Of course, this does not excuse the strategic failure of the Clinton campaign to have a game plan for the caucus states.

But if we are going to ban superdelegates, or require superdelegates to get behind the pledged delegate leader, then we better have a more equitable system for allocating the pledged delegates. It’s wrong for Obama to net as many pledged delegates from a low-turnout caucus state as Hillary netted in the Ohio primary blowout.

Over at Iowa Independent, Douglas Burns has put up another post complaining about the tough bill on public smoking that the legislature adopted earlier this month.

Burns offers 10 ways to deal with the smoking ban which, in his words, will introduce “a radical cultural change in many shot-and-a-beer, small-town taverns that dot the Iowa landscape.”

One of his suggestions is:

2. Take your anger out on Gov. Chet Culver, Big Brother Democrats and Turncoat Republicans

To be a one-issue voter for the rest of your life is crazy. But the smoking ban is an example of effete urban Iowans monkeying around with the small businesses of rural Iowans. If it’s smoking today, what’s next for government intrusion into small businesses? Will we go the way of New York City and ban certain fatty foods to the point where chicken-fried steaks must be served without gravy?

With statehouse races in the fall, smokers and those who don’t like the creep of big government into Iowa life should send a message by voting against smoke ban supporters. Better yet, contribute to their opponents. The ban was generally a Democratic brainchild and product, but some Republicans jumped off the Bridge Over the River Common Sense on this one, too.

I’ve got 10 suggestions for the smokers like Burns who feel oppressed by “effete urban Iowans” (which isn’t even accurate, if you look at the list of legislators who voted for this bill):

1. Quit using that “what will they ban next, fast food?” analogy. The smoking ban is nothing like the government trying to control people’s consumption of fatty food, because eating unhealthy food doesn’t affect other people’s health the way second-hand smoke does.

2. Acknowledge that your choice to smoke in a bar or restaurant prevents employees of those establishments from choosing not to inhale smoke. It’s easy for you to say that people who don’t like smoking should get another job. Maybe that “shot-and-a-beer, small-town tavern” is the only game in town for that employee. Maybe family obligations require someone to work evenings and weekends, when a large portion of the jobs available are in restaurants or bars.

3. Recognize that what seems inconvenient to you may allow pregnant women to avoid second-hand smoke and the increased risk of miscarriage and stillbirth that accompanies it.

4. Remember that pregnant women exposed to second-hand smoke have a higher risk of delivering a low-birth-weight baby, which is associated with a greater chance of various health problems.

5. Instead of complaining about having to step outside for a cigarette, think about the future babies who will not have an elevated risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome because you did not expose their pregnant mothers to second-hand smoke.

6. Think of all the men and women who work in that place you like to smoke who will no longer have to work in an environment that raises their chance of getting cancer, heart disease or chronic lung problems.

7. Recognize that this smoking ban will probably save you money if it pushes you to smoke less or even quit.

8. Take up Burns’ suggestion to pursue the free smoking-cessation counseling offered by the Iowa Department of Public Health’s Tobacco Control Division. Then you can treat yourself to something nice with the money you save on cigarettes.

9. If you own a restaurant or bar where smoking has been allowed up to now, take heart; research in other parts of the country suggests that you will not lose business because of the smoking ban. I know that I eat more often at the Waveland Cafe in Des Moines since the owner made it smoke-free last November.

10. If you own a different kind of business where smoking has previously been permitted, remember that smoking bans bring hidden economic benefits to many businesses, including “reduced absenteeism, reduced insurance costs, and reduced cleaning and maintenance costs.”

Feel free to add to my list in the comments section.