Got an e-mail from the Biden campaign:

July 3rd: Enjoy a day at the State Capitol. Stop by the Yankee Doodle Pops and then come see Senator Biden's 2:30pm press conference on the steps. Several major State Legislators will be endorsing Biden and you can join in the festivities.

July 4th: March with Senator Biden in the Urbandale Parade. Line up is at 9:30am on 70th St between Palm Dr. and Roseland Dr. The parade starts at 10am. Wave to the crowds and share the excitement of Independence Day as you and Senator Biden< make your way through Urbandale. July 4th: Come to Senator Biden's backyard Barbecue hosted at the home of Nate and Meg Boulton. Guests are welcome at 1:30pm. This is a great chance to experience the Senator and Presidential Candidate one on one, ask questions, and enjoy a beautiful day. For details or to RSVP please contact Raena, Raena@JoeBiden.com or 515-440-2008.

Anyone know who's planning to endorse Biden?

Anyone keeping track of the statehouse endorsements so far? The only one I know of for sure is Staci Appel, who's on the Hillary bandwagon. 

I've been somewhat critical of the Culver administration when it comes to environmental issues, but I'm proud of Chet Culver upon reading this release that came to me on the Sierra Club e-mail list:

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Governor Chet Culver « Lt. Governor Patty Judge
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 29, 2007

Contact: Brad Anderson
 (515) 281-0173

 

GOVERNOR CULVER APPOINTS NEW EPC BOARD MEMBER

 

PAUL JOHNSON NAMED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION

(Des Moines)  Today, Governor Chet Culver appointed Paul Johnson of Decorah to the Environmental Protection Commission.  The EPC is a panel of nine citizens who provide policy oversight of Iowa's environmental protection efforts. EPC members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by vote of the Senate for four year terms.

“Paul is a family farmer who will bring valuable experience to this important Board,” said Governor Culver.  As Governor, I am committed to improving water quality and protecting the land, lakes, rivers and streams we all love.  I am confident Paul will make a valuable contribution to the EPC’s efforts to protect Iowa’s environment.”

PAUL JOHNSON – Paul Johnson holds a BS (1966) and MS (1969) in Forestry from the University of Michigan and an honorary doctorate from Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. His international experience spans Peace Corps service in Ghana, West Africa (1962-4), forestry teaching in Ghana (1967-68), doctoral research in tropical forest ecology in Costa Rica (1969, 1970, 1971), co-directorship of the Luther College Nottingham Year (1980-81) in Nottingham, England and numerous educational and research visits to countries such as Sweden and the former Soviet Union.

Since 1974, Paul and his family have owned and operated Oneota Slopes Farm near Decorah, Iowa. Their farm has included dairy, corn, soybeans, hay, beef cattle, sheep and Christmas trees.
 
Paul's distinguished public service career includes three terms in the Iowa State Legislature (1984-1990) during which he co-authored the 1987 Groundwater Protection Act, the 1989 Resource Enhancement and Protection Act (REAP) and the 1990 Iowa Energy Act. In addition, Paul served as Chief of the Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service) at the United States Department of Agriculture from 1993-1997 and as Director of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources from 1999-2000.
Additional service includes two terms on the National Research Council's Board on Agriculture (1988-1993) and participation on numerous foundation boards including the Aldo Leopold Foundation. He has been the recipient of many awards over his years of public service, among them the prestigious Hugh Hammond Bennett Conservation Award from the Soil and Water Conservation Society of America.

Earlier this year Culver appointed four new commissioners to the EPC: Dale Cochran, Ralph Klemme, Charlotte Hubbell and Susan Heathcote. I heard later that one of men would be unable to serve because it turned out that he was not currently farming (at least one, possibly two of the four commissioner positions is reserved for a farmer). I don't know if that was Cochran or Klemme.

In any case, Paul Johnson is an outstanding environmentalist and a good Democrat too (he ran against Latham in the 4th District a few years back). 

After winning the 1st and 2nd Districts in 2006, Iowa Democrats have their sights set on Tom Latham's seat in Iowa's 4th District.

Dr. Selden Spencer is committed to running again in the 4th district, a district Gov. Culver won with 59% of the vote. In 2006, Dr. Spencer had a winning message, but he entered the race late and was fighting an uphill battle. He is starting early this time around and has been busy raising money. 

This week Dr. Spencer sent this email out to supporters …

“This may be the most important date of this election for taking back the 4th District for the people of Iowa. June 30, 2007 is the second quarter filing deadline for the Federal Election Commission. On this day, all federal campaign committees must report their donations. Together, we can elevate this race to the national level. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and other national groups, will be looking at this quarter to find the candidates and campaigns to target to win in 2008…and they want to help our race here in Iowa. We need to show support in the district now. I am fully committed to winning in 2008, but my commitment is not enough. It takes more than one person to create change. I am asking you to match your previous donation of $ or send $25, $50, or $100 to show Washington we are serious about 2008. It may seem early, and like I mentioned before, this is a big quarter to show support. Your contribution now means more support from the national committees who will elevate this race to the most competitive level in 2008.

Every dollar you can send will show the DC bigwigs that Dr. Spencer is the real deal. Every dollar you can send has the chance of turning into more money for the Spencer campaign down the road. Please help out Selden Spencer's campaign by donating whatever you can before Saturday's deadline.

The way last night's exchange was set up, it was hard to declare an actual winner or loser in terms of substance and reference to the issues (especially since they all seemed to finish each other's sentences and agree for the most part, save for Gravel and Kucinich).  Without trying to sound racist, Obama seemed poised to make a huge splash with the audience–he is, after all, an African-American man speaking to a largely African-American audience.  However, that didn't happen.  And maybe that's a good thing.

Overall, it seemed that a lot of candidates stood out.  Clearly, Clinton stood out with her response that garnered her the only standing ovation.  Biden stood out for the ridiculous things he said and the look he put on Al Sharpton's face (it must prove that the pundits and media elite really are his biggest constituency).  Richardson again demonstrated that while he may be an excellent person-to-person on the ground campaigner, he still has a way to go in the debates.  And Chris Dodd seemed to sound like the most invigorated, presidential-esque candidate up on the stage.

Did anyone do exceptionally poorly?  Of course not.  But it is clear that there wasn't really a favorite last night, someone who swept the field and dominated.

MSNBC's First Read documents a lot of the different responses from media outlets and the pundits last night on who stood out, who 'won,' and who bombed (though I don't understand how they thought Biden stood out, as they said so here).  Clearly, the media elite seem to think that Clinton and Obama continued to stand out.  But that's because the Clinton-Obama race is the horserace for them to follow and cover.  The tit-for-tat between the two campaigns is what they're looking for.

So, I'm putting the question to you, registered Bleeding Heartland users: Who  do you think stood out the most or performed the best (in essence: won) last night's forum? And don't just limit your answers to submitting your response in the poll; leave a comment explaining your vote, too.  This is your community site.  Make it worth your while.

As usual, I'm taping the debate to watch later, after the kids are in bed.

If you watched, let us know what you thought. Who won? Who missed a great opportunity? Who had the best line? 

As I talk to voters in my precinct who caucused in 2004, I am finding that very few of them have watched the first two debates. I think people will tune in more in the fall. 

There have been some claims that Hillary Clinton is “push-polling” against her main rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Her campaign appears to have commissioned some detailed message testing in both states. That is different from a sleazy push-poll (such as what Bush did to McCain in South Carolina in 2000, having people call up voters asking if it would change their opinion if they knew that McCain had an illegitimate black child).

Nevertheless, this kind of survey rubs some voters the wrong way. This Daily Kos diarist described it as “push-ish” polling.

I don't have a problem with message testing–I was a respondent on a lengthy message-testing survey commissioned by Chet Culver before last year's gubernatorial primary. I do think it's sleazy for Democrats to attack each other using right-wing talking points, but I don't blame campaigns for wanting to know which messages are going to be effective for and against them.

That said, I would really like to know which candidates are doing these surveys, and what kinds of messages they are testing. If you get a call like this, please try to remember the questions (taking notes if needed), and put up a diary afterwards. Or, if you prefer, you could share your info with me by e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com). I will not reveal your identity.

I’ve blogged about it before over at Political Forecast, but I’m not too enthusiastic with the way that Senate Democrats have responded to Jim Nussle’s nomination to be Director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  Maybe it is all of the work I did during the gubernatorial race talking about Nussle’s failed leadership on the House Budget Committee as it’s chair–leading us into horrible deficits, uncontrollable spending, and ridiculous tax cuts for the richest Americans.

Or maybe it is just that we know he’s a confrontational hack who shouldn’t be charged with leading such a complex and tough office, one that requires someone with some kind of expertise is actual management and appropriate budgeting techniques.  The reality, however, is the that OMB is largely a political office and it made sense for Bush to pick someone who was willing to give up the next two years to fight with Congressional Democratic leadership about the Republican President’s budget.

Still, the least the Democrats could do is raise objections to Nussle’s past experience–deficits and debt–and instead call for someone more inclined to have positive budget experience, yet be known for compromise and hard work, not hackery.

I guess that’s why I’m slightly surprised at today’s Register story where Jane Norman reports that Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), the chair of the Senate Budget Committee, is not all that enthusiastic about Nussle’s nomination and has some reservations.  Maybe that’s just political cover for the left flank by telling grumpy activists like me that they’re not planning for anything great coming from, but are going to confirm him anyway.

Or maybe it is some serious action that would make Conrad more inclined to grill him during confirmation hearings.  Conrad is no liberal in the way that people consider Iowa’s Tom Harkin (who has indicated he’ll likely vote to confirm Nussle), but Conrad has a strong populist streak on trade and labor issues.  Nussle’s record on those issues, particularly with the budget, is not good at all.  Kudos to Conrad for stepping up, and I hope he takes it to another level.

Desmoinesdem has previously written about Project Destiny–a tricounty joint venture between Polk, Dallas, and Warren Counties to increase the sales tax in the three communities by one cent–and urged you to vote against the plan.  And now the South Central Iowa Federation of Labor AFL-CIO, will announce on Thursday that they plan to oppose the sales tax increase as well.

From an advisory put out today:

“Union leadwers say voters should consider that “basic needs” are not being met in the three-county area. A regressive tax to finance so-called “quality of life” efforts such as bicycle trails, they say, should not take precedence over citizens’ fundamental needs.”

With strong labor opposition, who knows how the effort will fare on election day, July 10th.

Discussing and talking about the proposal is no easy subject.  Almost two weeks ago, CityView’s cover story was dedicated to the debate over Project Destiny.  The story offered more insight on the project, its supporters and opponents than the Register or any other local news stations have offered.  I recommend reading the full story to truly understand the debate behind Project Destiny.

The biggest opposition to the tax comes from taxpayers groups and citizens who feel that the sales tax increase is a regressive move that hits the poorest residents in these three counties the hardest.  And they’re right.  The fact is, the fundamentals for citizens in these areas aren’t even being provided and that is something that local government leaders should focus on first and foremost.

While I’m all about lowering property taxes in the area–because we could certainly use the decrease–the problem is that current tax revenue isn’t being spent wisely.  Not to mention that we’re already giving out large property tax breaks to the corporations who would receive the most benefit from the proposal were it to pass and they were to have their property taxes reduced further.  Inherently, the system is complex and difficult, but the focus should be on infrastructure priorities and essentials.

I want more trails, culture, and focus on the arts in the region.  But I can’t write off a disproportionate tax increase on the low-income and poorest people of the community to make our region better.  I just can’t.

For more information on the proposal, check out the supporters’ website and the opponents’ website.

The Richardson campaign sent an email out this afternoon with this surprising bit of information from internal polling they have done…

The Governor has rocketed up 10% among likely Iowa caucus goers in just three months, and now stands at 13%. No other Democratic candidate has made gains anywhere close to that over the same time period. In fact, amongst the likeliest caucus goers (those who attended the 2004 caucuses, voted in the 2006 primary and are definite to attend next year's caucus) the Governor has overtaken Senator Obama for 3rd place.

Richardson has been moving for the past few months in Iowa. It just shows what a couple million dollar of good, creative TV ads can do.

What is surprising about this, however, is that Obama's numbers are falling in Iowa.  He has been traveling the state, doing smaller events, yet he isn't moving up in the polls.

The Richardson campaign is also saying they will outraise John Edwards this quarter. If they do and if they are ahead of Obama in Iowa, I think it would mark that Richardson has officially entered the 2nd-tier and is knocking on the door of first-tier status. 

For those of you who don't already know or who haven't yet registered, the second annual YearlyKos Convention is coming up quickly, August 2-5 in Chicago.  Last year was the first convention and it was held in Las Vegas, so I wasn't able to make it.  This year, however, I registered in January and have been making plans to go and be involved.  You can get details about the convention here .  So far, the convention is bringing out a lot of prominent bloggers and political leaders.  Here's a quick political guest list so far:

• Sen. Chris Dodd
• Sen. Dick Durbin
• Ret. Gen. Wes Clark
• DNC Chair and Gov. Howard Dean
• Fmr. Sen. John Edwards
• Sen. Barack Obama
• Gov. Bill Richardson

All of the Presidential candidates listed above will also be taking part in a presidential leadership forum hosted by the convention on August 4th.  They're still waiting to hear back from other candidates about their attendance.

Registration for the convention ends July 14th, so hurry up and get registered now.

There is also some fantastic networking and organizational opportunites to indulge in at YearlyKos, with lots of different breakout sessions and social opportunities.  One highlight this year will be Regional Blogging Caucuses.  I have the privilege of being one of the Organizers/Coordinators of the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Iowa Blog Caucus and I'm looking to get a list of Iowa folks who are planning on attending YearlyKos and would be interested in participating in the caucus.  They'll only be 90 minutes long and will provide ample time to talk about regional hot topics, as well as to get to know fellow bloggers from the region.  I'll post more information on the Regional Caucuses as I learn more.

Anyway, if you're planning on attending, leave a comment and let me know!

While this isn’t exactly Iowa-specific or Iowa-centered, I thought it was worth noting today’s MSNBC story on the left-leaning emphasis of journalistic contributions to federal campaigns and PACs.

Marc Ambinder decides to frame the issue as “all journalists are liberals” and says it doesn’t help fight the “liberal bias” title usually assigned to the MSM by the right-wing noise machine.

I’m more inclined to agree with Matt Yglesias:

“This effort at ginning up controversy by revealing political contributions made by employees of media organizations seems fundamentally misguided. For one thing, no effort is being made to see if the people named have any ability to impact coverage of national politics. They have, for example, a former copy editor here at The Atlantic on their list, but what nefarious influence is she supposed to have had on the magazine’s coverage?”

You can find the full list of journalists and their contributions here.  A large number of the folks listed are producers, copy editors, or other senior positions in journalistic enterprises.  Clearly, personal life issues and personal politics don’t inherently have to enter the work life and the job that one person is doing.  This goes for Republicans and Democrats.

Furthermore, this kind of ‘investigative’ reporting groups the kinds of journalists writing for Bloomberg in the same category as journalists writing for a magazine like The New Yorker.  Journalism isn’t just about writing down the facts of current events and reporting them to the people, there is real investigative work and commentary that can be done–with a clear intent.  Simply put, you can consider it analysis.  Writers for The New Yorker are pretty clear about stating their intent and opinions in their pieces, which make them fundamentally different then the reporting done in a Bloomberg news piece.

Clearly, there are conflicts of interest with some of the people mentioned the in report, but is it really something pervasive among the journalistic community in this country?  I guess that’s for the consumer and the reader to decide.

And if you’re curious for an Iowa-angle, the only journalist from Iowa making the list was Des Moines Register business reporter S.P. Dinnen, who gave $250 to John Kerry in 2004.  His explanation can be found here.

Last November, right before the midterm elections, CityView also did a big cover story on bias in the media, particularly in Iowa.  They covered all angles, including print, TV, and radio.  I recommend reading the full story here as it provides great insight into the efforts of the outlets to maintain their objectivity and it also provides a good list of just who in the Iowa media is registered with which party (if any).

Finally, there is a poll in the extended entry asking if you think there is bias in Iowa’s press.

Seriously, Newsday breaks a story that he couldn't make time to attend the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group meetings, because he was too busy giving $100,000 speeches.

Then his Iowa campaign chairman, Jim Nussle, takes a job in the sinking ship that is the Bush White House.

Then his South Carolina campaign chairman gets indicted on federal cocaine charges.

Talk about a bad week! Stick a fork in him–he's done. 

UPDATE: Mike Glover of the AP covers Rudy's answers to some tough questions. Apparently he expects us to believe that he quit the Baker-Hamilton commission because it “didn't seem that I would really be able to keep the thing focused on a bipartisan, nonpolitical resolution.” 

I'll be away from my computer for several days, so there may be light posting until Tuesday, unless noneed4thneed and Mark Langgin have some extra time on their hands.

Meanwhile, consider this an open thread for discussing what you've been hearing from your caucus-going friends and neighbors (Democrats or Republicans). 

Here's the schedule I got by e-mail:

Sorry for the short notice–this just arrived today in my in-box. Go here at 4 pm CDT today (Wednesday) to participate:

    http://ChrisDodd.com…
  

UPDATE: I got a robocall telling me that Senator Dodd will be speaking at the Des Moines Public Library downtown on Tuesday, June 26, at noon. The main topic will be his national service plan, although I imagine he'll take questions on other topics too.

Didn't see any other public events listed on the Dodd campaign website, but if you're interested, check again in a few days. I assume he'll hold more than one event on this Iowa trip. 

A new Mason-Dixon Iowa poll was released today. Of 400 likely Democratic caucus-goers, 27 percent said they were undecided, followed by Clinton with 22 percent, Edwards with 21 percent, Obama with 18 percent, Richardson with 6 percent, and Biden with 4 percent.

The Clintonistas are triumphant over at MyDD, confident that Teresa Vilmain is already delivering the goods for Hillary, and that Bill Clinton's three-day campaign swing through Iowa in early July is going to seal the deal.

Wishful thinking, in my view. I have a question for Bleeding Heartland readers: how many undecided voters do you know who have NOT ruled out Hillary?

I know exactly two, out of scores and scores of undecided Iowa caucus-goers I have talked to over the last two months.

If 27 percent of Iowans really are undecided (and I wouldn't be surprised if the true proportion of undecideds is higher than that), then Hillary is going to fall behind once they make up their minds.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bill's visit gives Hillary a little bounce here, but ultimately, Iowans will understand that voting for Hillary is like voting for a Republican to appoint the next two or three Supreme Court justices. No thanks. 

I just got this press release on the Sierra Club Iowa topics e-mail list:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 19 June 2007
Contact: Josh Dorner, 202.675.2384

                    Senate Says Firm No to Liquid Coal
         Vote Puts the Public Interest Ahead of Special Interests

          Statement of Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director

“In spite of Herculean efforts by the coal industry and its friends in
Congress, the Senate today delivered a very important victory in the fight
against global warming by decisively voting against jumpstarting a new
massively expensive, massively polluting liquid coal industry–twice.
Senators showed that they understood that we need to leave behind the
failed policies of the past–and past Congresses.

“At a time when we need to get on the path to achieving an 80 percent
reduction in our global warming emissions by 2050–an achievable annual
reduction of 2 percent–the level scientists tell us is necessary to avoid
the most catastrophic effects of global warming, business as usual is no
longer acceptable.  Liquid coal produces nearly twice the global warming
pollution as conventional fuel and Senators were right to turn their backs
on it.

“Though Senators successfully blocked these damaging liquid coal
provisions, they now need to turn their attention to breaking a filibuster
led by Senator Domenici that is preventing a fair up or down vote on the
Bingaman Renewable Electricity Standard amendment.  Senators must also
block attempts by Senators Levin, Bond, and Pryor to further weaken the
CAFE compromise in the bill.

“We thank Senators for their leadership on this important vote and hope
they will continue to make the changes necessary to make this bill one that
we can truly be proud of.”

The person who posted the press release noted that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both voted FOR the coal to oil subsidy, which thankfully did not pass the Senate.

That is pathetic. I'm not surprised that Hillary voted yes, because the Clintons have never seemed to care much about the environment.

But for Obama to support this subsidy for the coal industry suggests to me that he is not serious about dealing with global warming. Dodd, Richardson, and Edwards all have put forward superior proposals on this issue. 

UPDATE: Here is a link to the Senate roll call vote on liquid coal:

http://www.senate.go…

Of the presidential candidates, Clinton and Obama voted yes, Biden voted no, Dodd, McCain and Brownback did not vote. (I'm sure Dodd would have voted no.) 

Harkin and Grassley both voted no. 

Those of you who live in Polk, Dallas or Warren counties will get a chance to vote on the “Destiny” tax proposal on July 10.

David Elbert describes the basics in this piece in the Sunday Register. The concept is, the sales tax would go up from 6 percent to 7 percent in the three counties. One-third of the revenues would go to “property tax relief,” one-third to fund cultural attractions like bike trails, and one-third to local governments to use on whatever they want.

The Register coverage has been mostly cheerleader pieces on how great an idea this is, and how “Yes to Destiny” would help fund the things that make Des Moines a great place to live. They've been mostly dismissive of opposition as based on knee-jerk anti-tax sentiment, or on mistrust of local governments because of things like the CIETC scandal.

As much as I hate to find myself in agreement with the Grover Norquist wing of the Republican Party, I strongly oppose this tax proposal.

For me, it's really simple. The sales tax is regressive, and raising it would impact lower and middle-income people disproportionately. In theory, property tax cuts will offset the tax hike, but corporations and high-end homeowners will get most of the benefit from property tax cuts. Renters or those who live in inexpensive homes will just be getting a tax hike.

If corporations are so excited about these cultural amenities as a way to attract quality employees, then let them fund those initiatives without demanding a property tax cut for business at the same time. 

I'm all for spending more on the arts, music, and bike trails, but I'm not for raising the most regressive tax to do so. The Des Moines Partnership and Chamber of Commerce types who will wring their hands if “Destiny” fails to pass should ask the higher-income Iowans to chip in for culture.

Six months ago, before Tom Vilsack dropped out of the race, I predicted that Hillary Clinton would finish fourth in the Iowa caucuses. When he quit, I thought Hillary might finish second or third instead (behind Edwards, who I still think will win Iowa).

But I'll tell you what–Bill Richardson spent his money wisely on those early tv ads. My unscientific conversations with caucus-going Democrats in Des Moines and the suburbs tell me that a lot of people are interested in Richardson and want to learn more.

Although I've not met many firm Richardson backers, very few undecided voters are telling me that they have ruled him out. That gives him tremendous potential to grow his support as people make their minds up late in the game.  

The question in my mind is, can Richardson assure Iowans that he has not only great experience, but also a strong policy agenda and campaign skills? He seemed uncomfortable with the format of the first two debates, but fortunately for him, hardly anyone I talk to seems to have watched those debates (even the people who caucused in 2004 and will surely do so again).

If Richardson can convince people that he has bold ideas and is a good enough campaigner to win a general election, I expect his numbers to go way up in Iowa. A lot of people are more comfortable supporting a governor anyway. 

The governor is coming to Iowa next weekend. If you see him in person, put up a diary afterwards to let us know how he is connecting with live audiences.

John Deeth put up his liveblog of a Mitt Romney event in Muscatine, and this part jumped out at me:

Health care and portability and preexisting. “The Democrats have their answer: Socialized medicine Hillary care is not the answer.” Big applause. Cites Mass. program and private sector.

The Republicans are so clueless. Hillary would do less to shake up the for-profit health insurance industry than practically anyone else in the Democratic field. It would be baby steps at most on health care. Nothing nearly as bold as what Obama and Edwards are offering, and certainly not single-payer, as Kucinich is advocating.

Even single-payer (“Medicare for all”) is not really socialized medicine, because the government would not be running all the hospitals and doctors' offices. The government would just be the payer.

But arguing these points with Republicans is pointless. They have decided that ultra-left-wing Hillary is for socialized health care, and they will pound this point home. 

Hillary Clinton would be an incredibly weak general election candidate–she's got all the downsides of the leftist image with none of the upside of a truly progressive policy agenda.