Courtesy of Moveon.Org. Footnotes supporting all these statements, with links, are after the jump.

We need to spread the word that McCain is not a moderate maverick–he is a hard-core conservative. Even my stepmother, who wouldn’t vote for him, was under the mistaken impression that he was pro-choice.

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don’t):

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has “evolved,” yet he’s continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain “will make Cheney look like Gandhi.”2

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3

4. McCain opposes a woman’s right to choose. He said, “I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned.”4

5. The Children’s Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children’s health care bill last year, then defended Bush’s veto of the bill.5

6. He’s one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a “second job” and skip their vacations.6

7. Many of McCain’s fellow Republican senators say he’s too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: “The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He’s erratic. He’s hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”7

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his “spiritual guide,” Rod Parsley, believes America’s founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a “false religion.” McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church “the Antichrist” and a “false cult.”9

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0-yes, zero-from the League of Conservation Voters last year.

UPDATE: DemFromCT wrote a great post today, “McCain Runs Into Trouble On Health Care Reform.” He noted this hilarious headline from the Boston Globe:

McCain camp working out healthcare details

Aides struggle to sort out his promises

Back in 2002, Steve King hadn’t yet become an embarrassment on the national stage; he was merely a crusader for intolerance in the Republican-controlled Iowa legislature. Tom Vilsack was a first-term governor nervously eyeing a midterm re-election campaign under the very popular President George W. Bush.

Seems like a long time ago, doesn’t it?

Anyway, King was obsessed with passing a law declaring English the official language of Iowa. Didn’t you know how difficult it had become for Iowans to express themselves without official acknowledgment of English’s status?

Vilsack vetoed one version of the bill, then signed the rewritten bill that came to his desk. Disappointed liberals were assured that Vilsack had made the smart play by taking the issue off the table for the November election. Besides, the new bill contained all kinds of exceptions, so it would be little more than a symbolic measure.

Well, this week a judge in Polk County “ordered Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro to stop using languages other than English in the state’s official voter registration forms”, the Des Moines Register’s William Petroski reported. (If you want to read the ruling, click here.)

In 2006 King, by then a U.S. Representative in Iowa’s fifth district, complained that then-Secretary of State Chet Culver had put voting information in Spanish, Laotian, Bosnian and Vietnamese as well as English on the secretary of state’s website.

Attorney General Tom Miller had determined such action was acceptable because the official English law allowed for “any language usage required by or necessary to secure the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, or the Constitution of the state of Iowa.”

King filed suit last year against Culver and Mike Mauro, who was elected secretary of state in 2006.  District Judge Douglas Staskal concluded that voter registration forms in languages other than English are against the law, and voided the “improper exercise of agency power.”

Miller, like Culver and Mauro a Democrat, may appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court:

“Our view is that although the Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act requires all official forms to be in English, it does not prohibit government officials from providing materials in other languages as well,” Miller said. “We argued that position to the District Court. This principle can be particularly important in the area of voting rights of citizens.”

If this ruling is upheld, it will hamper efforts to register voters whose native language is not English.

I’m with the Des Moines Register’s editorial board, which wrote on Saturday that “it’s time for Iowa lawmakers to repeal this embarrassing law.”

They should do so because the law is mean-spirited and sends an anti-immigrant message. They should do so because it makes Iowa seem xenophobic. They should do so because it’s unnecessary when studies show today’s immigrants are learning English as quickly as their predecessors.

And to lawmakers who may have thought the law was toothless because it included exemptions, Judge Staskal’s ruling tells them otherwise. The law applies to “official action” from government, which is broadly defined. It could have a “chilling effect on speech by causing government employees to refrain from non-English communication all together,” he wrote.

There is still time for legislators to repeal the official English law this session.

Don’t let the ghost of Steve King constrain voting rights in the upcoming presidential election.

One of the biggest scandals in Washington journalism is the media pack’s willingness to cover up John McCain’s legendary temper. The same journalists who happily depicted Al Gore and Howard Dean as angry and unstable rarely mention McCain’s tendency to fly off the handle.

Tom Harkin reminded us of this problem on Thursday:

“Yeah, I’ve been on the receiving end of it and yes, I’ve seen it, and yes, everyone here knows about it,” Harkin said.

“It can be scary,” he said. “Flying off the handle without discussing things with people, working things out … I’ve seen it a couple, three times here.”

McCain claims that what makes him angry is waste and corruption in Washington, but look for stories of his temper tantrums to trickle out in the coming months. This is common knowledge among everyone who has worked in the Senate or the Washington press corps.

On Thursday I wrote about how Ed Fallon’s I’M for Iowa movement has become an issue in the campaign for the Democratic nomination in the third Congressional district.

I am returning to the topic to address some points Chase Martyn raised in an article for Iowa Independent, “FEC disputes Fallon campaign statement,” and in the comment thread below that article. I agree with Chase on a couple of specifics, but disagree with the larger point he is making.

My post included the text of an April 2 press release from Fallon’s campaign titled, “FEC Confirms Boswell’s Allegations Baseless Against Fallon.” It asserted that the information services department of the Federal Election Commission “confirmed that Ed Fallon has done nothing illegal or unethical.”

An FEC spokesperson told Iowa Independent, “No Commission employee made any determination relative to the specific circumstances of any campaign. Only the Commission can make such a determination.”

Reading Fallon’s press release, it appears that a campaign official reviewed the relevant portions of the rules with someone from the FEC in order to confirm the content and/or intent of those rules. But the release should not have claimed the FEC confirmed the Fallon campaign’s position regarding I’M for Iowa.

I have to agree with Chase that this kind of “amateur mistake” is not going to cut it. Fallon’s press shop needs to have an extra copy editor and tighter supervision to make sure nothing like this happens again.

Chase is troubled by the fact that I’M for Iowa is not legally obliged to disclose its donors:

What if Leonard Boswell sent out an email from his personal email account soliciting donations to his personal bank account in exchange for intangible political advocacy services?

Don’t you think Ed Fallon would be the first in line to criticize him for inviting corruption?  Even if, as Fallon says (and I believe him), he respects Boswell and doesn’t think he’s an evil or dishonest man, Boswell’s actions would introduce too many ethical questions to allow him to effectively represent us in Congress.

I agree that if Fallon were elected to Congress, it would be inappropriate for him to continue to raise money for outside political advocacy by I’M for Iowa. In that event, it would be best to shut down I’M for Iowa or transfer it to new ownership outside Fallon’s household, so as not to create any opportunities for (or even the appearance of) corruption.

Chase’s larger point seems to be that Fallon should have made I’M for Iowa a 501(c)4 organization rather than a general partnership.

I don’t know the details about what it takes to set up a 501(c)4 compared to a business like I’M for Iowa. I know from friends who are in the small business world that it gets complicated when you are trying to decide whether to establish a general partnership, an S-corp, a limited liability corporation, etc.  Each variant has pros and cons.

I am involved in several non-profit organizations, and it is frustrating not to be able to take a position on certain issues because of limitations related to 501(c)3 status. While 501(c)4 organizations can undertake political advocacy, the reality is that some controversial issues get overlooked by 501(c)4s as well.

So I see a niche for a business like I’M for Iowa, although as I wrote in my previous post, I have never contributed to I’M for Iowa and haven’t followed its work closely. If people are willing to contribute money to support Fallon’s political advocacy related to CAFOs, eminent domain, coal-fired power plants and so on, I have no problem with that.

It’s not as if I’M for Iowa is hiding what issues it works on.

Chase is concerned that Fallon could evade contribution caps for Congressional candidates by taking unlimited large donations for I’M for Iowa, paying himself a large salary through I’M for Iowa, and then turning around and writing large checks to his own Congressional campaign.

Fallon lives simply and has disclosed his modest income, so it would be a huge red flag if he started writing big checks to his Congressional campaign (which we would learn about from campaign disclosure documents).

Meanwhile, Boswell has already had American taxpayers write large checks to his campaign, in effect, by using his franking privilege to send out three glossy direct-mail pieces that had the look and feel of campaign literature. Those were very different from the typical constituent letter you get from Boswell’s office on regular paper in a regular envelope.

The Des Moines Register has given Boswell a “thistle” for using his franking privilege to send out material that “crashes across” the line between “legitimate constituent communication and overt political campaigning.” I have seen no estimate of how much these mailings cost taxpayers. Will Boswell’s office disclose those numbers?

Chase notes in a comment that

The issue of Boswell receiving corporate PAC money might be of concern to many, but we are only able to complain about it because he is forced to disclose it.

So now I am supposed to be more worried about hypothetical scenarios related to potential I’M for Iowa donations than I am about real, existing sources of Boswell’s campaign funds.

I know from experience that Boswell will often not represent my views on matters of great importance to me. I know that for years I have been getting numerous action alerts from progressive groups urging me to contact Boswell on this or that bill.

Invariably, they are just trying to get Boswell to take the mainstream, majority Democatic position for or against whatever bill is the issue.

Matthew Grimm recently noted in a piece for the Down with Tyranny! blog:

A more sophisticated rating [of Boswell’s voting record] at Progressive Punch’s When The Chips Are Down scale shows that when substantive matters with sharp partisan divides are voted on, Boswell is frequently ready to rubber stamp much of the Bush corporate agenda.

Here is a link to Progressive Punch’s scorecard for all House members. Boswell ranks 188th in terms of his support for progressive stands “when the chips are down.”

I don’t know why Boswell has voted the way he has. I don’t know if it has any relationship to campaign contributions from corporate PACs that promote different policies from the ones I favor. Ultimately, his reason for not consistently representing the Democratic Party’s views and values is irrelevant to me.

I want to worry less about whether my member of Congress will vote with the Democratic majority consistently, particularly if we end up with another four years of a Republican president.

I want to address one more point related to I’M for Iowa. While not claiming that Fallon has broken any laws, the Boswell campaign is trying to undermine the legitimacy of political advocacy work as opposed to a “real job.”

Boswell spokesman Mark Daley has suggested there is something illegitimate about I’M for Iowa:

“If he’s going to run on clean elections, then he should come clean about what he’s doing,” Boswell campaign spokesman Mark Daley said.

[…]

The ethics questions are the latest jab by Boswell ahead of the June 3 primary.

“On the surface, this looks like a fund to give him a job,” Daley said.

I notice a similar theme running through the comments by some Boswell supporters on various blogs: Fallon has never had a “real job.” I object to the idea that political advocacy and community organizing are not real jobs. Furthermore, I am active with 1000 Friends of Iowa, for which Fallon served as executive director for a number of years. Just because it’s in the non-profit sector doesn’t mean it’s not a job.

If Fallon decided to pursue political advocacy work full-time after the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, and people were willing to contribute money to I’M for Iowa, why is that less legitimate than getting people to invest in a different kind of business?

To me this looks like a smokescreen by the Boswell campaign to raise doubts about Fallon.

Why doesn’t Boswell want this campaign to be about his voting record and what he has done as representative for the third district?  

Barack Obama says he will withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months if elected president. He was recently endorsed by Bill Richardson, who advocated keeping no residual troops in Iraq (combat or otherwise).

So I was intrigued by this story from the New York Sun about a confidential policy paper written by an adviser to Obama:

http://www.nysun.com/national/…

The paper, obtained by The New York Sun, was written by Colin Kahl for the center-left Center for a New American Security. In “Stay on Success: A Policy of Conditional Engagement,” Mr. Kahl writes that through negotiations with the Iraqi government “the U.S. should aim to transition to a sustainable over-watch posture (of perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces) by the end of 2010 (although the specific timelines should be the byproduct of negotiations and conditions on the ground).”

Mr. Kahl is the day-to-day coordinator of the Obama campaign’s working group on Iraq. A shorter and less detailed version of this paper appeared on the center’s Web site as a policy brief.

Both Mr. Kahl and a senior Obama campaign adviser reached yesterday said the paper does not represent the campaign’s Iraq position.

I would like a stronger statement from Obama that he categorically rules out keeping tens of thousands of troops in Iraq through the first two years of his administration.

Otherwise Bill Clinton will be proven correct: the idea of Obama as a consistent opponent of the Iraq war is a “fairy tale.”

Since launching my exploratory committee in January of 2007, I've encountered a wide variety of people both online and in person. My exploratory committee lasted 11 months, until I turned it over to an official campaign on Veterans’ Day on the 11th of November Since the official launch, I have spent months on the road collecting signatures for ballot access and for speaking engagements. This entire experience has exposed me to people and places in Iowa that most people will never access. Frozen Wal-Mart parking lots in Mason City, smoke-filled bars in Eagle Grove, and Clint Eastwood-made-famous-cafes in Winterset.

A few posts down I mentioned that Elizabeth Edwards has been going after John McCain for his totally inadequate health care reform proposal. As she has noted, both she and McCain could be excluded from his program because their cancer would be considered pre-existing conditions.

Instead of addressing her substantive arguments, McCain’s national finance co-chair, Fred Malek, whines that she should not be talking about cancer in a political context:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

Finding a cure for cancer is a vitally important mission for this country. Supporting that mission should unite everyone – and should be off-limits from the political and partisan battlefield.

…I just hope that it doesn’t become a common occurrence on the campaign trail. The cancer conversation is best left to the experts, researchers, and doctors.

Yes, let’s all join together and find a cure for cancer, while not mentioning that cancer patients could be denied coverage under McCain’s health care plan.

Click the link to read diarist Dean Barker’s discussion of the highlights of Malek’s career. They include his work compiling a list of high-ranking Jews in the  Bureau of Labor Statistics for President Richard Nixon in 1971.

You can find statistics about sexual assault and resources for survivors and those who wish to become counselors at the website of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault:

IowaCASA’s mission is to unite people and organizations to promote a society free from sexual violence and to meet the diverse needs of survivors.

[…] Today, IowaCASA has 27 member sexual assault crisis centers serving survivors of sexual assault throughout Iowa. Eleven staff work on several initiatives including: technical assistance and training to member centers; civil legal assistance for survivors of sexual assault, including immigration assistance; improving responses to sexual assault within communities of color; a training initiative for assisting survivors with developmental disabilities; a national project providing peer-based assistance to other sexual assault coalitions; statewide sexual assault prevention; training for allied professionals; and public policy efforts at the state and national level.

If you or someone you care about is in danger because of an abusive situation, the site provides this advice:

Email is not a safe or confidential way to talk to someone about the danger or abuse in your life. To discuss a confidential issue please call our office at 515-244-7424 or the statewide Iowa Sexual Abuse Hotline at 1-800-284-7821 to be connected to a sexual assault counselor in your area.

I’ve put contact information for all member centers of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault after the jump.

I first met Mike Blouin in the spring of 1974, when he came to KWLC, the campus radio station at Luther College.  He participated in a half-hour interview program and I was the person asking the questions.  He was an easy interview, with a winning personality, a friendly demeanor, and an open, candid approach to the media (or at least to this young, inexperienced student reporter).  

As I’ve noted recently, the primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district has taken a strange turn, whereby the incumbent seems to be trying to make the race primarily about the challenger’s faults rather than the incumbent’s record of service.

I’ve been too busy in non-blog life to write up the day to day sparring following a recent e-mail from Leonard Boswell’s campaign, which attacked Ed Fallon on several fronts.

The criticism of Fallon by Boswell’s surrogates and supporters has focused on four issues in particular:

1. alleged ethical questions related to Fallon’s work for the Independence Movement for Iowa (I’M for Iowa)

2. the salary Fallon drew from unspent campaign funds following the 2006 gubernatorial primary

3. allegations that Fallon pondered running for governor as an independent after losing that primary

4. Fallon’s stand against taking contributions from PACs while allowing PACs to encourage their individual members to donate to his campaign.

I will cover each of those issues in a separate diary, because I don’t have time to write about all of them at once. Today, I will address the allegations related to I’M for Iowa.

Chase Martyn of Iowa Independent published a piece on March 20 called “Fallon Faces Campaign Finance Questions.” Martyn raised questions about I’M for Iowa’s ability to collect unlimited donations without disclosing the sources:

Although I’M For Iowa participates in political advocacy and relies on contributions to stay afloat, its financial status does not fit the typical mold for this type of organization. Rather than registering it as a nonprofit organization with the Internal Revenue Service under sections 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4) or 527, Fallon runs the organization as a for-profit general partnership, making its tax status no different from most home businesses. He and his current campaign manager, Lynn Heuss, co-own the business.

But there is a difference between I’M For Iowa and most typical businesses: Rather than sell products and services to customers, it accepts donations for its political advocacy work. While the donations are not tax-deductible, the business can accept unlimited amounts of money. And because of its tax status, it is not required to disclose information about its sources of funding.

Martyn also noted that two e-mails sent to I’M for Iowa’s distribution list appeared to have promoted Fallon’s Congressional campaign:

On Feb. 29 an e-mail Fallon wrote to his I’M For Iowa group invited readers to visit his campaign Web site and participate in campaign activities to coincide with his 50th birthday. And on Jan. 12 he sent an I’M For Iowa e-mail announcing his candidacy for Congress and providing a lengthy critique of his primary opponent’s voting record.

The result is a complicated question involving the nuances of campaign finance law. Can an unincorporated business accept unlimited contributions without the requirement to disclose its contributors and then use contributed funds to promote a congressional campaign?

Martyn suggested that even if no laws were broken, the questions could hurt Fallon’s image, since he has been a strong advocate of clean-elections laws (such as the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections Act, which would create a voluntary system of public financing of election campaigns).

The Des Moines Register didn’t follow up on the Iowa Independent story until after the Boswell campaign drew attention to it a week later. Thomas Beaumont examined various questions related to I’M for Iowa in the Register on March 29:

The organization is a trade name registered with the Polk County recorder. Small businesses such as lawn care services and other sole proprietorships register this way.

However, some other advocacy organizations, such as the 15-year-old, Des Moines-based State Public Policy Group, is also registered the same way as Fallon’s group.

I’M for Iowa is not a corporation, over which the Iowa secretary of state has regulatory authority.

Fallon’s group does not have to report its sources of money or what kind of business it is. But it receives no money from corporations, said Lynn Heuss, Fallon’s partner in the organization.

It runs on contributions from individuals who support its agenda, which includes limiting large livestock confinements, curbing global warming, promoting campaign finance reform and preventing abuse of eminent domain.

It seems clear that there is no legal barrier to using the I’M for Iowa e-mail list to promote Fallon’s Congressional campaign.

Martyn wrote in Iowa Independent:

A representative of the Federal Elections Commission would not comment on any matters that regulators may have to rule on, but FEC regulations do not seem to explicitly prohibit coordination between a campaign and an unincorporated business entity owned by a candidate.

Beaumont’s March 29 article for the Register notes that

Campaign finance law bars corporate contributions from federal races. However, the law specifies corporations and limited liability companies, which Fallon’s group is not.

According to a press release from Fallon’s campaign on April 2, the information services department of the Federal Election Commission “confirmed that Ed Fallon has done nothing illegal or unethical.” The full text of that release is after the jump, but here is a relevant excerpt:

Fallon campaign manager, Lynn Heuss, provided the rules the campaign reviewed with the FEC Information Officer: From the FEC Candidate Guide, Chapter 4, Section 10, “Partnerships are permitted to make contributions according to special rules. 110.1(e) and (k)(1). For further details, see Appendix B.”

In addition, Chapter 4, Section 12 of the FEC Candidate’s Guide says, “When candidates use their personal funds for campaign purposes, they are making contributions to their campaigns. Unlike other contributions, these candidate contributions are not subject to any limits. 110.10; AOs 1991-9, 1990-9, 1985-33 and 1985-60. They must, however, be reported (as discussed below).” And a little further down under “Definition of a Candidate’s “Personal Funds” it says, “The personal funds of a candidate include: Assets which the candidate has a legal right of access to or control over, and which he or she has legal title to or an equitable interest in, at the time of candidacy; income from employment; ….”

Heuss clarified the only contribution the business has made is sending out two email messages, which constitute an in-kind donation, and is not in violation of FEC regulation.

(UPDATE: Chase Martyn reported on April 3 that the FEC denied making “any determination relative to the specific circumstances of any campaign”. Martyn added that Iowa Independent had merely questioned the ethics of how I’M for Iowa was used and not alleged that any laws were broken.)

If no laws were broken, what is the problem? The Boswell campaign has tried to suggest that there is something underhanded about I’M for Iowa. From the Register’s March 29 article:

“If he’s going to run on clean elections, then he should come clean about what he’s doing,” Boswell campaign spokesman Mark Daley said.

[…]

The ethics questions are the latest jab by Boswell ahead of the June 3 primary.

“On the surface, this looks like a fund to give him a job,” Daley said.

Although I’ve donated to Fallon’s gubernatorial and Congressional campaigns, I have never contributed money to I’M for Iowa. As a result, I haven’t followed the organization’s work very closely.

But if individuals want to give money to help Fallon advocate for clean elections, or organize opposition to coal-fired power plants and CAFOs, what is the problem?  

Non-profit organizations are unable or unwilling to take a position on some kinds of political disputes, so there is a niche for a business like I’M for Iowa.

Does the Boswell campaign mean to suggest that advocacy work is not a real job? That seems strange. Barack Obama’s supporters and television commercials have praised that candidate for working as a community organizer after finishing law school.

Frankly, I’m a little surprised the Boswell campaign wants to go down this road, since Boswell’s campaign accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from corporate PACs in 2007 alone. I’m supposed to be concerned about the hidden agenda of individuals who have contributed to I’M for Iowa?

Asked to comment in the Register article of March 29, Fallon characterized the allegations as typical establishment politics:

“The political establishment attacks a candidate on his strength,” Fallon said. “My strength is my commitment to issues. They are looking for ways to discredit me.”

Fallon’s campaign addressed the controversy in more detail in statements released on March 31 and April 2. The full text of those press releases are after the jump.

I am surprised to hear that the Republican National Committee’s Rules Committee has approved a proposed 2012 nominating calendar that would keep the Iowa caucuses first, followed by New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

I had assumed that the GOP establishment would have the knives out for Iowa, since Mike Huckabee’s triumph here hurt establishment favorite Mitt Romney, while this year’s nominee John McCain, another establishment favorite, finished a distant fourth place.

Keeping Iowa first is not a done deal:

The measure, which passed 28-12, must now be approved by the rules committee meeting in August, scheduled for the week before the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. Finally, the measure must be approved by delegates to the convention.

Still, it’s interesting that this calendar has support within the RNC rules committee for now.

Since Barack Obama seems very likely to become the Democratic nominee, I would assume that the Iowa caucuses are safe if he wins the general election. If he loses to McCain, however, I expect members of the Democratic National Committee to change the calendar. A lot of angry Democrats will blame Iowans for picking a loser again.

Governor Chet Culver on Tuesday signed into law Senate File 2347, which requires all Iowa counties to use optical scan voting machines and paper ballots.

The state will spend an estimated $4.6 million to replace touchscreen voting machines in 19 counties that have been using them.

It’s a relief that all 99 counties will be using similar voting equipment, which is less vulnerable to tampering than touchscreen machines and allows for hand and machine recounts in the event of a close election.

The Des Moines Register quoted Sean Flaherty of Iowans for Voting Integrity as saying voters will also save time in the counties that are replacing the paperless machines. Voting by touchscreen takes longer and leads to bigger backlogs at polling stations.

A lot of credit goes to Secretary of State Mike Mauro, who showed leadership on this issue despite the governor’s early objections to the cost of the plan and complaints by some officials in the counties that had purchased touchscreen machines.

I just got a robo-call from Governor Chet Culver inviting me to a fundraiser that he and Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge are hosting for Congressman Leonard Boswell this Saturday, April 5.

The event starts at 6:30 pm at the Hotel Fort Des Moines (10th and Walnut in Des Moines). The Too Many Strings Band will perform.

I received an invitation to this event in the mail two or three weeks ago. It looks like they are expecting contributions of at least $25 to Boswell for Congress, with hosts, sponsors and patrons donating at higher levels.

If any Bleeding Heartland readers attend this fundraiser, please put up a diary afterwards to let us know how it went, how big the crowd was, and anything interesting the speakers may have said.

I expect they will raise quite a lot of money for Boswell’s campaign this Saturday.

Be glad Hillary Clinton didn’t take the advice of the Barack Obama supporters who have been urging her to drop out for more than a month now.

Democrats are making huge gains in voter registration in Pennsylvania, a must-win state for our nominee this fall.

Does anyone think this would be happening if both candidates weren’t working the state hard in the runup to the primary?

Smintheus has more on the Pennsylvania trends at Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…

And Jonathan Singer adds some useful analysis on Pennsylvania at MyDD:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008…

The indispensable nyceve put up this diary about a fantastic blog post by Elizabeth Edwards: Why Are People Like Me Left Out Of Your Health Care Proposal, Sen. McCain?

Just click the link and read the whole thing. We need to hammer McCain on this issue, because his health care reform plan is totally inadequate.

You couldn’t miss this front-page story in the Des Moines Register on Monday:

Plan to reshape Ankeny tackles troubled spots

City officials and developer DRA Properties are transforming a 1,031-acre World War II munitions plant site into a live-work-play development called Prairie Trail. They expect 10,000 people to move there by 2020.

To realize their new urbanist dream, however, the developer and others are working to eliminate concerns about the land, some of which has been designated as a Superfund site by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It’s a designation the EPA gives to uncontrolled hazardous waste sites identified as risks to human health.

[…]

There are two primary environmental concerns within the development, said Iowa DNR and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials.

The most critical is the 38-acre parcel to be converted into a city park. The land was used as a landfill and industrial lagoon decades ago by the Army, John Deere and the city. The area is where production waste of mainly metal particles and oils was disposed. Spots within the site, including toxic sludge left in the old industrial lagoons, contain unsafe levels of metals such as lead, chromium, copper, arsenic, manganese and antimony, according to the EPA.

EPA officials said the metals will have to be put out of human contact. Under a proposed plan, that would be done by a combination of removing soil and sealing the ground with a thick plastic barrier and clay cap.

Today, one in 10,000 people has a chance of getting cancer from a lifetime’s worth of exposure at the site, EPA toxicologist Jeremy Johnson said. After the cleanup, he said, those odds will be one in 1 million. “Those cancer risks won’t be there,” he said.

The landfill and lagoon area is a Superfund site. It is not on the Superfund national priority list, which identifies the country’s worst hazards.

However, it is not known whether the site would qualify for the national priority list, said Gene Gunn, a branch chief in the EPA Superfund program. It is not being considered for the list, which is largely a designation for projects to receive federal money, because the parties responsible for the contamination have voluntarily agreed to pay for the cleanup.

“I wouldn’t be very concerned with it,” Gunn said of the site as it would be after the cleanup. “The action that’s going to take place there will leave it in a protective state.”

Under a draft proposal, a covenant on the land would prevent houses from being built on the lagoon and landfill site, and the groundwater near there would be monitored for 30 years.

The Prairie Trail development is a great concept: a mix of residential, retail and public space in the center of town, easily navigated by foot or bicycle for those who choose not to drive.

However, community activists were raising concerns two years ago about the potential for schools, parks and houses to be placed on contaminated ground. I wish the Register had given the story prominent coverage at that time.

I hope they do a good job cleaning up this site, but frankly, I would hesitate to buy a home anywhere near that lagoon or landfill.

to teach people in the U.S. and around the world that “the climate crisis is both urgent and solvable.” Good for him.

It’s no use just scaring people and making them feel helpless and powerless to change our energy consumption and policies.

A Siegel has the story at Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

The Center for American Progress Action Fund has more at their website (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/). I am reproducing some material from that organization after the jump, but the links did not transfer from my e-mail to this post, so you’ll have to go to the website to pick those up.

I didn’t see this last week, because despite my requests, the Boswell campaign is still not sending their press releases to me (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com). But on Friday the United Auto Workers came out for Boswell in the Democratic primary to represent Iowa’s third Congressional district. Via Iowa True Blue, here is the release from the campaign:

Des Moines, IA – Congressman Leonard Boswell received the support of the Iowa United Auto Workers State Community Action League (CAP) today.  “I’m honored and proud to have earned the support of the UAW,” said Boswell.  “These hard working men and women share my commitment to protecting working families, making college more affordable, creating jobs that can’t be outsourced and bringing health care to every American.”

“Leonard Boswell stood by our side time and time again in pushing for CAFE standards that help the environment, lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and produce manufacturing jobs across our country,” said Dennis Walker, President of the Iowa UAW State CAP.  “He fought to stop the sale of Maytag when our jobs were attacked, and has worked tirelessly to bring jobs back to the Newton area.”

The UAW has approximately 30,000 active and retired members in Iowa.

It’s not clear how many UAW members in Iowa live in the third district. There used to be a sizable number in Jasper County, but that was before Maytag closed.

So far Boswell has swept the union endorsements, including the Service Employees International Union, despite Ed Fallon’s rock-solid voting record on labor. It’s extremely rare for unions to back a challenger in a primary.

How many foot soldiers will these unions provide for Boswell this spring? I think he will need the help to match the volunteers organized by the Fallon campaign.

What do you know? Under John McCain’s health care reform plan, insurance companies could exclude pre-existing conditions such as his own recurrent melanoma. Of course, McCain doesn’t need to worry about this, because he has the Cadillac care provided to all members of Congress.

Elizabeth Edwards, who could likewise be excluded under McCain’s plan because of her history of breast cancer, has called McCain on his hypocrisy. Click the link above to read nyceve’s important diary on the subject.

On a related note, Dr.SteveB, who like nyceve advocates a single-payer health care system (that is, like Medicare, but covering every American), reports on a new study published in the peer-reviewed journal Annals of Internal Medicine. A nationwide survey of 2,193 physicians

showed 59% “support government legislation to establish national health insurance,” while 32% oppose and 9% are neutral. That’s a solid majority of American doctors, and up 10% from 49% in 2002 when a similar study was last done.

This is an excerpt from the article in Annals of Internal Medicine:

Support among doctors for NHI has increased across almost all medical specialties, said Dr. Ronald T. Ackermann, associate director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research at Indiana University’s School of Medicine and co-author of the study.

“Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy,” he said.

Dr.SteveB has more on the story if you click the link.

I am continually amazed by the pretzel logic displayed by some bloggers who support Obama. No, these people are not crackpots; their work is enthusiastically recommended and praised by their fellow travelers.

A few days ago Hillary Clinton unambiguously confirmed that she will be 100 percent behind Obama if he wins the nomination:

Clinton was asked by a questioner in the audience here what she would tell frustrated Democrats who might consider voting for McCain in the general election out of spite.

“Please think through this decision,” Clinton said, laughing and emphasizing the word “please.”

“It is not a wise decision for yourself or your country.”

The crowd applauded loudly.[…]

Clinton stressed that there are “significant” differences between her and Obama, but said “those differences pale to the differences between us and Sen. McCain.”

“I intend to do everything I can to make sure we have a unified Democratic party,” she said. “When this contest is over and we have a nominee, we’re going to close ranks, we’re going to be united.”

If you only read blogs that take their cue from the Obama campaign’s talking points of the day, you missed this story.

I didn’t see jubilant front-page posts and recommended diaries about it at Daily Kos either.

On the other hand, every offensive statement made by some supporter of Clinton becomes a federal offense, one that must be denounced by all who back Hillary.

I’ll continue this discussion after the jump.