Obviously Christopher Rants is the biggest impediment to extending the civil rights code to cover the GLBT community, but there isn’t much we can do about him (other than send even fewer Republicans back to the state house next year).  There are some legislators that need to hear from concerned Iowans about their opposition or indecision on the bill currently bottled up in the house.

These Democrats are either currently planning to vote no or refuse to take a stand one way or the other:

Dolores Mertz

Dawn Pettengill

Brian Quirk

Paul Shomshor

These GOP representatives are believed to be supportive:

Chuck Gipp (Retiring in 2008)

Linda Miller (Voted for it in committee)

Bill Schickel

Tami Weincek

You can call all of them at (515) 281-3221.

This is urgent – if anything is going to happen on this bill, it is going to happen in the next couple of days.  GLBTers have been a model team players for Iowa Democrats, supporting our candidates without hesitation and with very little demanded in return.  While Democrats have been successful in the minority at stopping a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, now that we are in the majority we ought to be working to make Iowa a more equal state.

It’s not like gay activists are being unreasonable here.  They aren’t asking for gay marriage, or even civil unions.  Just one tiny change that says that it is wrong to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation.  The fact that there is any difficulty at all getting Democrats to vote for that is depressing, and the fact that not one single Republican is willing to stand up for the principle is appalling.

On Saturday I talked to a woman I know who is involved with the effort to get anti-discrimination language regarding gays and lesbians into the State Civil Rights bill.

The Iowa Senate overwhelmingly passed this bill. There are plenty of votes in the House to pass it, but Republican leader Chris Rants won’t let any Republicans vote for it until at least 51 of the 56 Democrats say they will vote for it.

The Des Moines Register’s David Yepsen heard the same thing and wrote about it in the Sunday paper:

This Legislature has yet to approve anti-discrimination protections for gays and lesbians in housing and employment because of a political game House Republicans are playing.

They want Democrats to put up 51 votes from their members before any GOP lawmakers will vote for it. (This is being done so Democrats from conservative districts are on record casting a tough vote that will then be used against them by conservative Republican challengers in the 2008 election.)

John Deeth put up this post on Friday about GLBT activists in Iowa City who are angry with House Majority leader Pat Murphy about this. I don’t blame them.

The bottom line, though, is that the House Democrats need to hear from lots of people on this issue. They’ve been raising money from the GLBT community, and those who favor equal rights for gays and lesbians, for years. It is wrong for Democrats to run scared on this issue, but if they think that our side is going to give them a pass on it, they might be more inclined to play it safe.

I encourage everyone to contact the House leadership (Pat Murphy and Kevin McCarthy) about this. I have heard that Geri Huser of Altoona is also on the fence, so if you live in her district, give her a call or send an e-mail. I don’t know who the other wavering House Democrats are. If you know, please leave that information in the comments section.

You can call the House Switchboard at (515) 281-3221 and ask to be connected to any of the representatives.

Who would you like to see liveblogging at Bleeding Heartland later this year?

It could be someone from the Iowa Democratic Party, an elected official, a strategist, a presidential candidate, a likely candidate for a different office in 2008, anyone you’d like to hear from directly on this site.

Also, if we ever had a political bigwig liveblogging at Bleeding Heartland, when would you be able to join in the conversation? Would it be better to schedule this in the morning, afternoon, evening?

Consider this an open thread for your suggestions to the authors on this site.

First-term members of Congress generally take one of two paths: they keep their heads down while learning the ropes, or they make a splash. Looks like Bruce Braley is taking the second path.

Not long after his hilarious grilling of GSA administrator Lurita Doan got linked to all over the liberal blogosphere, Braley is making the news again as the most assertive member of the Iowa delegation when it comes to getting answers from the Pentagon.

Join me after the jump to see Braley getting praised by Des Moines Register columnist John Carlson, of all people.

Seriously, it’s great news that Johnson County Republican Chairman Sanders finds Google useful.

We all know that he is the frontrunner in Iowa, but it turns out that Edwards is popular all over the midwest.  Obama is surprisingly strong in the west (anyone have any idea why?), while Clinton is weaker in these two regions.  That’s unfortunate, since those are the two swing regions in the country.  We’re going to win the northeast for sure in 2008.  We’re probably going to lose most of the south, no matter how big our overall victory.  It’s states like New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and, yes, Iowa that are going to make the difference if I’m wrong and it does turn out to be a competitive race.  And in that kind of a fight, it looks like Hillary would be our weakest candidate.

There is nothing more satisfying than looking at the current field of Republican candidates.  Cyclone Conservative has a great list on his blog – my favorite is Millie Howard, whose website is like a bad myspace page and who has apparently been running since 1992.

It’s hard for me to get too worked up about who gets the Democratic nomination, because any one of them is going to win in a landslide.  Jesus, people – the Republican’s best candidate is a cross-dresser and proud adulterer whose (third, if you count the time he married his cousin) wife murders dogs.  This is their best guy!  It’s going to be a fun cycle.

Where there’s a will, there’s a way!! I know how to get the money for Iowa’s clean elections bill. And is it ever SWEET!

Look here: Plug the Wal-Mart Loophole

It’s real tax money that now gets slyly siphoned out of the state and turned into tax-free profits for Wal-Mart and other devious corporations who operate in many states. They shift their money around, turning Iowa profits into “expenses” that they “owe” to their other pockets in other states where the money is not taxed. Eventually it becomes untaxed profits.

The fix is a reform known as “combined reporting” and it could have brought us $99 million in the year 2002. That’s FAR MORE than the ten million that we supposedly can’t find for VOICE.

We know where it is and we know how to get it. What are we waiting for, more campaign contributions to Patrick Murphy from Wal-Mart?

cross posted at http://iowavoters.or…

LATE UPDATE: I posted more about my background here and here. A better e-mail for contacting me: desmoinesdem AT bleedingheartland.com

Desmoinesdem is the pseudonym of a woman who has been interested in politics since she took on the role of John Anderson for a 5th-grade class debate. She wonders whether there are any other Bleeding Heartland registered users old enough to remember John Anderson.

She first participated in an Iowa caucus as a Paul Simon supporter in 1988. She wonders whether there are any other Bleeding Heartland registered users old enough to remember Paul Simon.

Now she is a mother of two in the Des Moines suburbs. She was a precinct captain for Kerry in 2003/2004 and for Edwards in 2007-2008. Aside from electoral politics, her interests include a wide range of environmental issues and attachment parenting.

The best way to contact her is to comment in one of her diaries, but she can also be reached at desmoinesdem at yahoo.com.

This started out as a quick reply to Mark Laggin’s post on Technology and 21st Century Caucus Ops.  It basically turned into a post in its own right.  Cross posted to (as opposed to from) my blog.

The paradigm shift we are starting to see is in the decline of one-to-many “broadcast” communications methods as an effective voter contact and voter persuasion tool.  Mark talked about phones.  Phones are especially vulnerable for two reasons.

One, the proliferation of cell phones, Internet telephony and the lack of centralized directories for both begins to limit traditional phone campaign methods to the a diminishingly useful or relevant legacy PoTS (plain old telephone service) universe. 

The second factor is linked to the first.  The inability to reach additional voters outside the PoTS universe leads to more intense competition for those voters using the tried-and-true methods campaign staff know.  This leads to what we saw in 2006 which is the almost complete alienation of voters to any phone contact and utterly diminishing returns on phone contacts

I know, I know.  That’s a pretty grand title for a blog post.  Yet, it’s a topic that really gets me going from time-to-time.  I think that the impact of new technologies related to wireless technology, GPS, computers, and the internet are just beginning to be realized and we have a long way to go.

I look at this post as a forum to talk about ways technology will play in Iowa during the run to the 2008 caucus.  I think this post from the Hotline blog can serve as a jumping off point.  It’s discussing the Romney caucus operation:

A walk provides a window into the soul of the Romney campaign: efficient, high-tech, friendly, driven. The rows of tables are ready for phone bankers. Where are the phones? There aren’t any. Collins decided to buy dozens of cell phones. They’re cheaper, don’t require a deposit, and can be easily transported to, say, Ottumwa for multi-purposing. They can also be tracked. They don’t break as easily. And Collins can avoid haggling with the local phone company.

Many people have taken the 2004 Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary results as proof positive that the candidate winning here will develop enough momentum to carry him or her through the entire nominating process.  While that obviously happened with John Kerry’s dramatic turnaround in New Hampshire following his win here, it is by no means a rule.

Historically, Iowa and New Hampshire have almost always differed in their choices.  Not counting sitting Presidents or Vice Presidents, Jimmy Carter was the last time that Iowa and New Hampshire agreed on anyone for either Democrats or Republicans (and technically Iowa voted for Undeclared over Carter).  If anyone other than Kerry had won the Iowa caucus in 2004, that streak would almost certainly have remained intact.

No, what 2004 taught us was that soft support in New Hampshire never really goes away.  Kerry was the default frontrunner there for half of 2003, with Dean eclipsing him around the middle of the year.  Even after moving all of his resources into Iowa, Kerry was still polling in second place.

After winning in Iowa, those 25%-30% of people who supported him earlier in the year suddenly remembered that they still supported him.  That, combined with an important but not overwhelming general boost from winning the caucus, led to his win there.

If John Edwards had won the Iowa Caucus, Howard Dean would have probably picked up New Hampshire, and the 2004 nomination fight would have been a lot more interesting (I’m just going to say for fun that Edwards probably would have ended up winning – he’s just a better all around candidate than Dean).  Instead we saw that Kerry rebounded, and took the combined momentum of back to back wins into a dominating performance throughout the rest of the season.

What does this tell us about 2008?  Right now Hillary Clinton is the John Kerry of New Hampshire, with high natural support that is persisting even with other campaigns active in the state.  If she exceeds expectations in Iowa, she should recapture those voters even if they stray in the meantime.  She is also much less likely than Dean to dramatically underperform in Iowa, which means that her New Hampshire supporters won’t be as shaken as Dean’s no doubt were.

2008 is going to be a lot different than 2004 though, with all three first tier candidates regularly polling in the double digits in early primary states.  Both Edwards and Obama have the potential to string together back to back wins, though it seems unlikely right now that a surprise Iowa showing by any of the second tier candidates would lead to dramatic movement in New Hampshire.  It’s still early, but with the campaigns moving as fast as they are this kind of analysis is appropriate now when it wouldn’t have been in February 2003.  Al Gore would shake things up, but other than that, or someone (probably Obama) making a dramatic gaffe, it looks like our field is pretty well set.

Does anyone else think that it is a big mistake for Obama to not release his numbers, given that everyone else has?  He is more or less being cut out of the discussion right now, and unless he has actually beat Hillary he’s not going to get a huge boost when he does (and even then he would get the same boost now and drown out her positive press.)

If Iowa is any indication, the bumbling Obama campaign likely has no idea how much money they raised this quarter, and won’t know for sure until the deadline or even after.  The checks are spread all over someone’s desk – on top of their list of important phone messages, no doubt.

I am also surprised that the media has accepted that $26 million figure from Clinton uncritically, when a healthy chunk could be useful only in the general election.  Mitt Romney may end up being the highest fundraiser of all the candidates on either side.  He should also see a more dramatic second quarter drop than anyone else.

Winners:

John Edwards – He stays in the first tier, when bad fundraising could have knocked him out of the competition.

Bill Richardson – Raises the most by far of the second tier candidates.  This guy is doing everything right, and has a good chance if one of the top candidates stumbles.

Losers:

Chris Dodd and Joe Biden – Come on guys, you have some sort of national networks, and you’re getting killed by the governor of a tiny state?  You might as well drop out now, because neither of you are going anywhere.

Obama – For not having his shit together.  Not getting talked about is as good as not raising money.

Hillary (maybe) – We’ll know better on the 15th, but her inability to put serious distance between her opponents and herself in fundraising means that the whole “inevitability” thing is disappearing fast.  As far as I’m concerned, general election money raised at this point is gimmickry.  It’s not like people who max out to you in the primary aren’t going to go back and donate to you in the general anyway.

I know this is really long for a typical blog post, but this is a column I wrote for Drake’s newspaper today.  I just thought it was an interesting topic you folks might enjoy:

Democratic selection might not be known until national convention

by Patrick Rynard (Columnist)

Issue date: 4/2/07 Section: Opinion

By this time next year, we ought to know who the nominees for president are. The candidates will have slugged it out in the early states, and an early winner will have gained the momentum to sweep the 20-plus states that make up this cycle’s “Super-Duper Tuesday.” Before Valentine’s Day arrives, all but one candidate will have dropped out on either side.

Or at least that’s what the conventional wisdom predicts will happen. I believe we may see a much different, much more exciting nomination. One in which the final outcome isn’t even decided for the Democrats until the national convention come August 25. Which would mean, yes, a major convention floor fight for the presidential nomination – something we haven’t seen since 1968.

I know that VOICE has nearly universal support in the blogging world and among activists, but the truth is that it is definitely not happening this cycle and unlikely to happen in the future without a serious accounting of how Iowa campaigns are run, both by Democrats and Republicans.

Exhibit 1:  Mike Gronstal’s 2006 third quarter campaign finance report (pdf).

Exhibit 2:  Mary Lundby’s 2006 third quarter campaign finance report (pdf).

Both of these show six-figure donations and expenditures for Senators not even up for election in 2006.  They don’t represent even close to all the centralized money in Iowa politics, either.

The reason you see so much party-line activity in Iowa politics is because all the money is controlled by leadership.  If you cross them too much you can expect to have a very difficult time raising money in your next election, and everyone hates to raise money.  If you are a team player though your seat will be defended and you can focus more on shaking hands and kissing babies.

If Iowa implemented VOICE, leadership’s power would disappear.  Naturally, then, it is going to be very hard to convince Gronstal or Murphy to buy into something that will work to marginalize them.  And with Republicans temperamentally opposed to any sort of campaign finance reform, there is next to no chance of getting this passed without their support.

I don’t see VOICE being passed by 2008, nor necessarily should it be.  Ed Fallon isn’t our governor.  Elections have consequences.  But we should keep pushing it this year, and we should do our best to make it a voting issue in 2008.  With the Presidential races expected to combine to over a billion dollars, we’ve got the context for it.  With caucus coverage more expansive than ever, we’ve got the microphone.  And with luck and a little work, in 2008 we’ll have the votes.

I cannot believe that this poll by the University of Iowa made news.  I cannot even believe that the University of Iowa would let it be published under their name.

According to it, the biggest winner after the announcement of Elizabeth Edward’s cancer was Hillary Clinton, and the biggest loser was Barack Obama.

If you read all the way to the bottom of the press release, you find out the sample size of the poll for likely Democratic caucus-goers (and God only knows how they determined that status).  That size?  128.  They report a margin of error of 6% on that sample, though by my calculations it should be more like 8.7%.  Even under the generous assumption that this sample was divided exactly in half for pre- and post- announcement polling, that leaves the before and after numbers with a margin of about 12%.

You know what that means?  Nothing at all can be concluded from this poll.  Nothing.  You’d think a University would be able to figure that out, but maybe they don’t teach statistics 101 to Political Science Ph.Ds.

I think the Pew Research Center for People and the Press is one of the best resources out there for finding “non-partisan” survey data and polling.  The sample sizes are large, extensive, and peer reviewed.  According to their website:

The Center’s purpose is to serve as a forum for ideas on the media and public policy through public opinion research. In this role it serves as an important information resource for political leaders, journalists, scholars, and public interest organizations. All of our current survey results are made available free of charge.

They have a new report detailing “Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007”.  My favorite part of the survey is below the fold…

Ed. Note: Cross-posted at Political Forecast.

So, I’m not sure how many folks have emailed or called their Representatives, but I know we’re being heard or read, just maybe not responded to.  After posting my original post both here and on Political Forecast as well as forwarding an email out to the Iowa Rapid Response email list, I know many other activists around Iowa have sought to contact Representatives in the Iowa House.  Jerry Depew of IowaVoters.org has been a leading voice on voting reform efforts in Iowa and has gotten the same standard response from Dave Jacoby that T.M. Lindsey received.  I emailed Reps. Jo Oldson, Dave Jacoby, Dwayne Alons, Pat Murphy, and Kevin McCarthy.  So far I haven’t received any responses.  DesMoinesDem called Jo Oldson and left a message, and as far I as I know has not heard back.

Meanwhile, I have a correction to report.  Dwayne Alons is not the Republican member of the subcommittee, but Rod Roberts is.  Here is his contact information:

• Rep. Rod Roberts (R)

  House District 51 — Carroll County

  Rod.Roberts@legis.state.ia.us

Sorry about the original confusion.  Please make sure to contact Rep. Roberts and find out where he stands on VOICE, HF 805.

Even if folks aren’t responding to your calls and emails, keep following up and putting the pressure on them to support the bill.  There may be concerns about funding and implementation, but that doesn’t mean the bill should be killed: It means the democratic process should be implemented, there should be a subcommittee hearing on the bill that is open to the public and that they should consider the problems with the bill there and work to improve it, not just kill it and put it aside for next year.  Iowans shouldn’t have to wait for the necessary reforms to our campaign finance system.

One final update, the calendar for tomorrow in the House has not yet been released.  As soon as I know if the House Appropriations Subcommittee plans on meeting, I’ll let you know.  We’ve got to get calls and emails (and follow-ups) in ASAP.  Keep up the hard work.

Ed. Note: Cross-posted at Political Forecast.

Today, we need action at the grassroots and netroots level to the bring Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections law out of subcommittee, to the full House Appropriations Committee, and then to the floor for debate in the Iowa House.  Ed Fallon (and his group I’m For Iowa) and former Governor Tom Vilsack both support HF 805 and right now the bill is in an appropriations subcommittee with instructions to kill the bill.

Members of that subcommittee include:

• Rep. Dave Jacoby (D)

  House District 30 — Johnson County

  David.Jacoby@legis.state.ia.us

• Rep. Jo Oldson (D)

  House District 61 — Polk County

  Jo.Oldson@legis.state.ia.us

• Rep. Dwayne Alons (R)

  House District 4 — Sioux County

  Dwayne.Alons@legis.state.ia.us

Please email them or call the House Switchboard at (515) 281-3221 to get a hold of them and ask them to support HF 805, the VOICE legislation.  The subcommittee is expected to meet either tomorrow or Wednesday — without large citizen support and efforts to communicate that support to them, they’ll kill the bill.  We cannot allow that to happen.  If the bill comes out of the subcommittee, it essentially becomes “funnel-proof” and must then be considered before the full House Appropriations Committee and would likely make it to the floor of the House for consideration.

When you contact your legislators, use this email from T.M. Lindsey as an example — and remember, be POLITE!  Also, include in your email if they plan on voting for the bill or against the bill, both in subcommittee and in further debate.  If they email you back, please post the response in the comments section and we can work to further inquire about the bill and where its going.  From these responses, we’ll start to put a list together of where each Representative stands and we can put the pressure on them.