Iowa Senators Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley voted no on Tuesday as the Senate rejected an amendment to “establish a Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action, to assure the long-term fiscal stability and economic security of the Federal Government of the United States, and to expand future prosperity and growth for all Americans.”
President Barack Obama supported creating that commission, which is the brainchild of Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad. The goal is to find some way to get big Social Security and Medicare cuts through Congress. Don’t get me started on why a Democratic president and a bunch of Democratic senators are so keen on cutting the most successful programs Democrats have ever enacted.
Anyway, Conrad’s idea was for the commission to work out a comprehensive deficit reduction strategy, which Congress would be not be empowered to amend before voting on it. Two decades ago, a similar procedure was developed for recommending military base closings to Congress.
Conrad’s amendment, offered to a bill that raises the U.S. debt ceiling, failed on a bipartisan 53-46 vote. 36 Democrats, 16 Republicans and Joe Lieberman voted for creating the deficit reduction commission, while 22 Democrats, 23 Republicans and Bernie Sanders voted no (roll call here). Bloomberg News reported,
Conrad’s idea was attacked from the left and right, with groups such as the Washington-based anti-tax Americans for Tax Reform saying it would mean higher taxes while the AFL-CIO and NAACP said it would lead to cuts in federal benefits.
It was also opposed by lawmakers who lead congressional committees with authority over tax and spending programs. Among them are Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Tom Harkin of Iowa, head of the health-care panel.
Senate Republican Conference Chair Lamar Alexander told Politico that Obama needs to “produce a Democratic majority in favor of” this idea if he wants more Republicans to vote for it.
Senator Tom Harkin told the Des Moines Register and Radio Iowa today that he will vote against confirming Ben Bernanke to another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Radio Iowa quoted him as saying he’s “tired of being held hostage by Wall Street”:
“I just think Mr. Bernanke is going to continue the policy of The Fed of taking care of the big financial institutions and to heck with Main Street,” Harkin says.
Harkin faults Bernanke for the handling of the Wall Street bailout. “Mr. Bernanke gave away trillions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to AIG at almost zero percent interest rate, and then they turned around and they held their counterparties – French, Germans, Swiss and many others – harmless. They didn’t have to take a hair cut at all,” Harkin says, “They got paid off in full and yet we (taxpayers) lost trillions.” […]
“I’ve had it with being told that some bank is too big to fail and I’ve had it with being told that someone, some person is so important that we have to have that person in this position. That’s nonsense,” Harkin says.
Meanwhile, Senator Chuck Grassley told the Des Moines Register, “I think I made a decision [on Bernanke] […] But I don’t think I’ll announce it.” Grassley went on to criticize the Fed for doing too little to fight inflation, suggesting we could be on a path to hyper-inflation like we had in 1979.
With unemployment at a 26-year high, I’m surprised Grassley is so concerned about hyper-inflation. Economists, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t deflation a greater risk right now?
Hot topics on this blog during the second half of the year included the governor’s race, the special election in Iowa House district 90, candidates announcing plans to run for the state legislature next year, the growing number of Republicans ready to challenge Representative Leonard Boswell, state budget constraints, and a scandal involving the tax credit for film-making.
I expected 2009 to be a relatively quiet year in Iowa politics, but was I ever wrong.
The governor’s race heated up, state revenues melted down, key bills lived and died during the legislative session, and the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Varnum v Brien became one of this state’s major events of the decade.
After the jump I’ve posted links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage of Iowa politics from January through June 2009. Any comments about the year that passed are welcome in this thread.
Although I wrote a lot of posts last year, there were many important stories I didn’t manage to cover. I recommend reading Iowa Independent’s compilation of “Iowa’s most overlooked and under reported stories of 2009,” as well as that blog’s review of “stories that will continue to impact Iowa in 2010.”
Following up on the diary I posted this morning, this post compiles links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage of national politics from July through December 2009. Health care reform was again the number one topic. I wish there had been a happy ending.
It took me a week longer than I anticipated, but I finally finished compiling links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage from last year. This post and part 2, coming later today, include stories on national politics, mostly relating to Congress and Barack Obama’s administration. Diaries reviewing Iowa politics in 2009 will come soon.
One thing struck me while compiling this post: on all of the House bills I covered here during 2009, Democrats Leonard Boswell, Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack voted the same way. That was a big change from 2007 and 2008, when Blue Dog Boswell voted with Republicans and against the majority of the Democratic caucus on many key bills.
No federal policy issue inspired more posts last year than health care reform. Rereading my earlier, guardedly hopeful pieces was depressing in light of the mess the health care reform bill has become. I was never optimistic about getting a strong public health insurance option through Congress, but I thought we had a chance to pass a very good bill. If I had anticipated the magnitude of the Democratic sellout on so many aspects of reform in addition to the public option, I wouldn’t have spent so many hours writing about this issue. I can’t say I wasn’t warned (and warned), though.
Links to stories from January through June 2009 are after the jump. Any thoughts about last year’s political events are welcome in this thread.
Assuming the House and the Senate pass whatever health insurance bill comes out of the conference committee, Republicans and Democrats are likely to highlight the reform during next year’s campaigns. Recent polls have shown that most Americans don’t expect action by this Congress to improve the quality of their own health care or reduce its cost. Complicating matters for Democrats, key provisions of the bill won’t take effect until 2013 or 2014, giving Republicans plenty of time to exploit fears about the so-called “government takeover” of health care.
After the jump, Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Senator Chuck Grassley preview messages we’ll hear from GOP candidates across the country, while Senator Tom Harkin summarizes some “immediate benefits” of the health insurance reform.
Senators approved the health care reform bill 60-39 as Vice President Joe Biden presided over the Senate’s first Christmas Eve session in at least four and a half decades. It was the expected party-line vote, with Republican Jim Bunning absent.
Speaking of health care maneuvering, Joe Lieberman’s brand has taken a hit this month. It’s no mystery why. As Nate Silver observed here and here, being at the center of the health care reform debate tends to bring senators’ approval ratings down.
Recent polls have shown Chuck Grassley still above 50 percent approval, but with far less support than he has enjoyed for most of his career. He has already been running some positive television ads, but I don’t think he’ll be able to get his numbers back up to the 70 percent range by next year’s election. Nevertheless, Grassley’s Democratic challenger will need to make a broad-based case against him, because his double-dealing on health care reform won’t be the focus of news coverage next fall.
At this historic moment, it is so important to the future of working Americans-and to our country-to get health care reform right. Despite doing some good things, the Senate bill remains inadequate. Substantial changes must be made in the final bill. […]
It makes no sense to tax the benefits of hard-working Americans to pay for health reform. The House bill curbs insurance companies and taxes the wealthy who benefited so richly from the Bush tax cuts. The Senate bill instead includes exorbitant new taxes on middle class health benefits that would affect one in five workers with employer-provided health coverage-or about 31 million people-in 2016. That’s the wrong way to pay for health care reform and it’s political suicide.
The House bill is the right model for reform. It covers more people, takes effect more quickly and is financed more fairly. The AFL-CIO is ready to fight on behalf of all working families to produce a final bill that can be called genuine reform. Working people cannot accept anything less.
SECOND UPDATE: This chart at the Washington Post site shows how each senator voted, how much he or she has received in campaign contributions from the health industry, and what percent of that state’s residents lack health insurance.
If this trade-off carries the day, the opt out public option is gone. […]
As has been widely reported, one of the trade-offs will be to extend a version of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan to consumers in the exchanges. Insurance companies will have the option of creating nationally-based non-profit insurance plans that would offered on the exchanges in every state. However, according to the aide, if insurance companies don’t step up to the plate to offer such plans, that will trigger a national public option.
Beyond that, the group agreed–contingent upon CBO analysis–to a Medicare buy in.
That buy-in option would initially be made available to uninsured people aged 55-64 in 2011, three years before the exchanges open. For the period between 2011 and 2014, when the exchanges do open, the Medicare option will not be subsidized–people will have to pay in without federal premium assistance–and so will likely be quite expensive, the aide noted. However, after the exchanges launch, the Medicare option would be offered in the exchanges, where people could pay into it with their subsidies.
It appears as if liberals lost out on a Medicaid expansion that would have opened the program up to everybody under 150 percent of the poverty line. That ceiling will likely remain at 133 percent, as is called for in the current bill.
In addition to the new insurance options, the group has tentatively agreed to new, and strengthened, insurance regulations, which the aide could not divulge at this time.
Additionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.
The health care bill approved by the House would require insurers to spend 85 percent of premium income on providing benefits. Upping that to 90 percent is even better; my concern is that if enforcement is left to state insurance commissioners, evasion will be widespread.
I’m off the bus, however, unless further details come to light about very good provisions buried in this compromise. This bill creates millions more customers for private insurers but doesn’t give Americans enough choices, doesn’t create a government plan to keep private insurers honest, and therefore is unlikely to reduce costs or solve the various problems of our current health care delivery system.
In the good news column, last night the Senate tabled (killed) Ben Nelson’s abortion amendment modeled on the Stupak language in the House health care bill. The vote was 54-45, with seven Democrats from conservative states voting with all but two Republicans (roll call here). Harkin voted to table this amendment, like most Democrats, while Chuck Grassley was on the other side.
A proposal to enable the importation of cheaper prescription drugs could endanger the U.S. medicine supply and would be difficult to implement, the Food and Drug Administration said Tuesday. […]
But the Obama administration’s declaration on the eve of the vote could derail the amendment despite the fact that Obama co-sponsored Dorgan’s drug imports bill while a member of the Senate and that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was a vocal proponent of the House version of the bill when he served as a member of the lower chamber.
Feel the hope and change!
SECOND UDPATE: The compromise still may not be enough for Joe Lieberman. They shouldn’t have given up on using the budget reconciliation process to pass a better bill with 51 votes.
Many Iowans will be leaving work or school early today, or perhaps not going in at all, as the season’s first big winter blast rolls in. Here’s plenty of reading to keep you busy if you are stuck at home.
Global news first: The United National Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen opened yesterday. To follow news from the proceedings, I’m reading the team of Mother Jones bloggers in Copenhagen. The Open Left blog will also post regular updates from Natasha Chart and Friends of the Earth staff who are on the ground. If you prefer a mainstream media perspective, check out The Climate Pool on Facebook, which is a collaboration among major news organizations.
The state could base its spending on a multi-year average, such as the previous three years, or five years or seven years, said Jon Muller, president of Muller Consulting Inc., a public policy and business development consulting firm based in Des Moines.
“The way it’s always worked, when times are really good, we increase spending and we cut taxes,” Muller said. “And when times are bad, there’s pressure to increase taxes and decrease spending. And that all happens when the demand for government is at its highest,” Muller said.
The multi-year idea would flip, he said.
“In good times you would be squirreling money at way a little at a time. And in bad times, you could continue to increase spending to service the growing demands of a recession.”
It would require state lawmakers to not touch the reserves, even in times of plenty. But it would also reduce the need to tap into reserves just to get by during rainy days, the advisers said.
Regarding budget cuts, the Newton Independent reports here on a “plan to reorganize the Iowa Department of Human Services operations under two deputy directors, six rather than nine divisions, five rather than eight service areas, more part-time offices and the elimination of 78 currently vacant positions” (hat tip to Iowa Independent). Click this link for more details about the proposed restructuring.
On the political front, John Deeth analyzes possible changes the Democratic National Committee is considering for the presidential nomination process. Jerome Armstrong had a good idea the DNC won’t implement: ban caucuses everywhere but Iowa. No other state derives the party-building benefits of caucuses, but just about every state that uses caucuses for presidential selection has lower voter participation than would occur in a primary.
I haven’t written much on health care reform lately, because recent developments are so depressing. Our best hope was using the budget reconciliation process to pass a strong bill in the Senate with 51 votes (or 50 plus Joe Biden). Now that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has taken reconciliation off the table, we’re left with a variety of bad compromises to get to 60 votes in the Senate. I am not convinced the final product will be any improvement over the status quo. It will certainly be worse for millions of Americans required to buy overpriced private health insurance. If there’s a quicker way to neutralize the Democrats’ advantage with young voters, I don’t know what it is.
Speaking of things that are depressing, John Lennon was shot dead 29 years ago today. Daily Kos user noweasels remembers him and that night. Although Paul’s always been my favorite Beatle, I love a lot of John’s work too. Here’s one of his all-time best:
Share any relevant thoughts or your own favorite Lennon songs in the comments.
Representative Bruce Braley has rejected Republican critics of a proposal to transfer some prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to the Thomson Correctional Center, just across the Mississippi River from Clinton.
“The time for fear-mongering is over,” Braley said. “I have listened to my constituents all week, and they have told me with a resounding voice they want these jobs to come to their area.”
According to the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, the plan for Thomson “would create 840 to 910 temporary jobs and between 3,180 and 3,880 ongoing jobs over the first four years,” and local residents could fill as many as 1,400 of those jobs.
Iowa Republicans don’t appear ready to stop stoking fears about terrorists coming to a prison near you. State GOP chairman Matt Strawn’s November 20 e-mail blast slammed Braley, along with Representatives Leonard Boswell and Dave Loebsack:
On the only vote specifically related to keeping these terrorists off American soil, all three voted to welcome them with open arms. Now Iowans face the prospect of them being housed minutes from our state.
Iowa’s Republican members of Congress, U.S. Reps. Tom Latham and Steve King both voted in support of the legislation keeping terrorist detainees out of the U.S. […]
Additionally, Congressman Latham this week introduced the ‘Keep Terrorists out of the Midwest Act” following the news that the Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Ill., has emerged as a leading option for prosecution and incarceration.
I gather that Republicans are confident this is a winning issue for them, but is there any evidence that Iowans are afraid to have prisoners moved to a maximum-security facility on the other side of the Mississippi? John Carlson, the Des Moines Register’s conservative columnist, went to Clinton last week and found broad support for the plan.
I’d like to hear from Bleeding Heartland readers who live in the area. Will Republicans score political points with this controversy, or will their efforts backfire in eastern Iowa counties that stand to gain jobs from Thomson’s expansion?
Yesterday the U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed Stephanie Rose and Nick Klinefeldt to be the U.S. Attorneys in Iowa’s northern and southern districts, respectively. Senator Tom Harkin recommended Rose and Klinefeldt for those positions in March, and President Barack Obama nominated them in September.
I still think the Senate Judiciary Committee should have thoroughly examined the treatment of Postville detainees before voting to confirm Rose. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in May that “federal prosecutors have inappropriately used aggravated identity theft laws to prosecute undocumented workers.” Most of the fast-track Postville prosecutions were identity-theft cases. I sincerely hope that under Rose’s leadership, the U.S. Attorney’s office in the northern district will treat alleged illegal immigrants more fairly in the future.
I’m heading to the Iowa Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. I won’t be blogging there, but I will update this post with some highlights when I get home.
Senator Tom Harkin has taped a video greeting for the event, because he’s in Washington as the Senate begins to debate the health care reform bill. Democrats have all 60 votes they need to bring the bill to the floor, but several members of the caucus have not ruled out backing a Republican filibuster before the final vote. I won’t be supporting the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee this cycle, because I don’t want a penny going to a dishonest tool like Blanche Lincoln. She’s probably going to lose anyway.
In addition to any comments about health care reform or the JJ Dinner, please consider this an open thread for anything that’s on your mind this weekend.
For comic relief: in the middle of this afternoon’s Senate proceedings, Chuck Grassley tweeted,
Can somebody tell me why Wall st Journal no longer list Des Moines in its weather cities list. Iowa still exists
UPDATE: I hadn’t been to the JJ dinner in a few years and had a great time. Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal were making fun of each other when the bucket was passed around for extra donations.
McCarthy: What’s the difference between God and a state senator? God doesn’t think he’s a state senator.
Gronstal: What’s the difference between House representatives and boy scouts? Boy scouts have adult supervision.
Speakers: Bruce Braley, Leonard Boswell, Patty Judge, Chet Culver, and Tom Harkin’s recorded video before Biden. (Dave Loebsack is out of the country.)
Huge ovation shortly after 8 pm when IDP chair Michael Kiernan came on stage to announce that the U.S. Senate defeated a filibuster of the motion to bring the health care reform bill to the floor, 60-39. Harkin promised in his video that they will get a health care reform bill bassed before the end of the year, and it will contain a public health insurance option.
Biden gave a great speech, with plenty of jokes, Irish poetry, quiet moments and a few lines that got the crowd on their feet. He apologized for being a little late; he had been on the phone with some unnamed senators whose votes he had helped sway on health care reform.
I had to leave right after Biden’s speech, so I missed the after-party, where U.S. Senate candidates Bob Krause, Roxanne Conlin and Tom Fiegen were set to speak. If you were there, post a comment or a diary to let us know how those speeches were.
SECOND UPDATE: After the jump I’ve posted Kiernan’s remarks and excerpts from Culver’s speech.
Congressional Republicans were fine with the Bush administration’s decision to prosecute the “20th 9/11 hijacker” Zacarias Moussaoui in U.S. federal court.
Numerous international terrorists with links to Al-Qaeda are already in U.S. prisons. In May, Fred Kaplan reported for Slate:
According to data provided by Traci L. Billingsley, spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, federal facilities on American soil currently house 216 international terrorists and 139 domestic terrorists. Some of these miscreants have been locked up here since the early 1990s. None of them has escaped. At the most secure prisons, nobody has ever escaped, period.
Now that the Obama administration is planning to try some terrorism suspects in U.S. criminal courts and transfer others to U.S. prisons, GOP leaders want Americans to be very afraid. Iowa’s Republicans have jumped on the bandwagon.
The Des Moines Register released more results from its latest Iowa poll by Selzer and Co., and Senator Chuck Grassley’s approval rating was 57 percent, the same as in the Register’s September poll. Only 32 percent of respondents said they disapproved of Grassley’s work.
Grassley’s 57 percent approval figure remains well short of the 75 percent he began the year with. […]
Political independents and Democrats have been responsible for much of Grassley’s slide since January. He made up little ground with them this fall. […]
More than half of Republicans say he did an excellent or good job on health care, while only about a quarter of Democrats and 39 percent of independents rate his work positively.
In a head to head matchup against Roxanne Conlin, Grassley led 57 percent to 30 percent. Last month’s Research 2000 poll of Iowans found Grassley leading Conlin by a much narrower margin, 51 percent to 39 percent. I’d like to see more polling of this race, but given Selzer’s track record in Iowa, I’m going to assume that the Register poll is close to the mark.
Since the media won’t be as focused on health care reform in the autumn of 2010, Democrats will need to build a case against Grassley that goes beyond his double-dealing on that issue. Even if Democrats run a near-perfect campaign against Grassley, he is very likely to be re-elected unless he makes some unforced errors.
On the other hand, it’s worth remembering that Grassley’s never been re-elected with less than 66 percent of the vote before. Holding him below 60 percent, or better yet below 55 percent, would greatly help down-ticket Democratic candidates next November.
Conlin narrates the video herself, and it’s mostly a biographical piece. Her parents lived paycheck to paycheck. She worked her way through college and law school.
Conlin was U.S. Attorney for Iowa’s southern district from 1977 to 1981. In this video, she says that as a prosecutor, she “took on drug dealers, corrupt politicians, and corporations who violated the public trust.” She then started a small law firm “to give a voice to everyday people who had none, like taking on the big banks to help family farms at risk of foreclosure.”
Conlin tells viewers, “Taking on the special interests has been the cause of my life,” and she is running for U.S. Senate “to take this fight to Washington.” She promises to help small business and promote renewable energy and other strategies for creating jobs in Iowa.
She doesn’t mention Senator Chuck Grassley directly, but she outlines the case she will make against him. Career politicians in Washington have lost their independence. Iowans were left behind when banks got bailed out and their top executives got huge bonuses. Grassley voted for the Wall Street bailout, which Conlin mentions twice in this video. No doubt we’ll hear more in the coming months about Grassley’s ties to various special interests and his votes for tax breaks companies use when they ship jobs overseas.
Conlin looks at the camera as she delivers her closing line: “Join me in taking on this fight, because the special interests have had their turn. Now, it’s our turn.”
Her campaign logo reads, “Roxanne for Iowa.” I would like to hear from campaign professionals on the merits of branding women candidates with their first names, like the Hillary for president signs and bumper stickers.
The Quad-City Times reports today that Roxanne Conlin is “in the midst of putting together a [U.S. Senate] campaign” and will file papers with the Federal Election Commission next week. She seems to have hired at least one campaign staffer already; the newspaper quotes Mark Daley as Conlin’s spokesman.
I expect Conlin to raise large sums of money quickly once she has formed a campaign committee, but she has a ways to go to become competitive with Senator Chuck Grassley. He had $4.4 million cash on hand at the end of the third quarter, and there will be plenty more where that came from. During this election cycle alone, Grassley has raised more than $1.6 million in individual contributions and $1.9 million from political action committees. Health care and insurance interests have generously supported him:
Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) has raised $154,350 in campaign donations in the 3rd quarter of 2009 from health care interests, including $43,590 from health insurance interests, according to research conducted by the campaign finance watchdog Public Campaign Action Fund. Grassley serves as the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which voted out a health care reform bill earlier this year.
Over his career, Grassley has raised at least $3.3 million from the health care and insurance industries during his time in Washington, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
“Sen. Grassley was showered with health industry contributions while the Finance Committee was meeting to discuss health care legislation,” said David Donnelly, national programs director for Public Campaign Action Fund. “Insurance PACs and executives wanted Grassley to oppose health care reform, and that’s what they got.”
Last week Cityview’s Civic Skinny expressed doubts that Conlin can raise $10 million without taking any money from lobbyists or PACs. $10 million might be a tall order, but Conlin has plenty of major donor contacts around the country, not to mention potential support from small donors who got fed up with Grassley this summer. Conlin probably won’t be able to match Grassley dollar for dollar, but she certainly will raise enough to stage a credible statewide campaign.
Iowans Nick Klinefeldt and Stephanie Rose were among three U.S. attorney nominees the Senate Judiciary Committee approved today by unanimous consent, the Main Justice blog reported. Their nominations still need to be confirmed by the full Senate, but that is likely to be a formality. In March, Senator Tom Harkin recommended Klinefeldt for the U.S. attorney position in Iowa’s southern district and Rose for the position in Iowa’s northern district. President Barack Obama nominated the two last month.
A Bleeding Heartland reader who watched today’s committee meeting tells me that Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy asked if there were any objections to the nominations, and none were raised. Senator Chuck Grassley told his colleagues that he “had interviewed both Iowa nominees –he praised Harkin’s selections and both nominees–he asked that a statement he prepared be made part of the record but did not read the statement.”
Professor Erik Camayd-Freixas, a Spanish-language court interpreter, has spoken and written at length about injustice he observed in the aftermath of the Postville raid:
Professor Camayd-Freixas wrote that the immigrant defendants whose words he translated, most of them villagers from Guatemala, did not fully understand the criminal charges they were facing or the rights most of them had waived.
In the essay and an interview, Professor Camayd-Freixas said he was taken aback by the rapid pace of the proceedings and the pressure prosecutors brought to bear on the defendants and their lawyers by pressing criminal charges instead of deporting the workers immediately for immigration violations.
He said defense lawyers had little time or privacy to meet with their court-assigned clients in the first hectic days after the raid. Most of the Guatemalans could not read or write, he said. Most did not understand that they were in criminal court.
Click here to watch a video interview of Camayd-Freixas or download his 14-page essay about his experience with the Postville detainees. Rose may have the skills to be a good U.S. attorney, but it bothers me that the Senate Judiciary Committee has just indicated that they have no concerns or objections about last year’s events in Iowa. That’s a bad message to send to U.S. attorneys everywhere.
Commiting to a campaign for the US Senate next year requires more than the confidence that I have the right experience, the necessary support and the resources to be successful. It must come with an understanding that it is the best way for me serve our State and my fellow Iowans in the most effective way possible at this time. I have decided not to run for the United States Senate in 2010. I will continue my work with the Iowa Initiative to Prevent Unintended Pregnancy and will be active in our Party and across the state in issues that affect the quality of life for all Iowans. […]
While I will not be a candidate for office in 2010, never doubt I am committed to a life of service and to Iowa.
So, the mystery challenger Iowa Democratic Party chair Michael Kiernan promised for Grassley is almost certainly Roxanne Conlin, who has said she’s leaning toward running.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see former Governor Tom Vilsack run for the U.S. Senate in the future. I expect Christie Vilsack to run for Congress when Leonard Boswell’s seat (IA-03) becomes open.
According to Bleeding Heartland user mirage, State Senator Brad Zaun is planning to run against Boswell next year. (I am trying to confirm that rumor.) Zaun was mayor of Urbandale, a heavily Republican suburb of Des Moines, before getting elected to represent Iowa Senate district 32 in 2004. He was re-elected to a four-year term in 2008, so he wouldn’t risk losing his seat in the upper chamber by running against Boswell.
“I never thought I’d run again,” Conlin said at her home in Des Moines. “But in my lifetime, I don’t ever want to say, ‘If only I had followed my dream or followed my heart.’ ”
“What has changed for me is Grassley.”
Conlin said she is “more likely than not” running, but first needs to iron out how she would staff a campaign and handle her law practice before making a final decision, which she expects to announce by next month.
She said she talked about running at length with state party chairman Michael Kiernan, who said last month a well-known Democrat was planning to enter the race. “I don’t know how this is going to come together, but I have reached the point where I would like to do it,” she said. […]
Conlin said Grassley’s tone on health care reform at public appearances in Iowa last summer pushed her toward running. […]
Conlin accused Grassley of being disingenuous, noting that he circulated a fundraising brochure stating he was working to defeat “Obama-care,” while continuing to participate in bipartisan negotiations.
“That’s not the Chuck Grassley I thought this state elected, and it really was a watershed moment for me,” Conlin said.
Conlin was the Democratic nominee for governor in 1982, the first year Terry Branstad was elected. Before that, she ran the civil rights division of the Iowa Attorney General’s Office and was the U.S. attorney for the southern district of Iowa.
She founded and was the first chair of the Iowa Women’s Political caucus, and was president and general counsel of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. Most recently, she has been named by the National Law Journal as one of the fifty most influential women lawyers in America, one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America and one of the top 10 litigators.
If Conlin runs, she will be a lightning rod for attacks from Republicans and corporate-funded political organizations. On the plus side, she is a powerful public speaker and may be able to drive up turnout, especially among women voters. She will also be able to raise more than enough money to run a serious campaign against Grassley. Earlier this month, Research 2000 found Grassley leading Conlin by 51 percent to 39 percent among Iowa voters.
Krause called the speculation about Conlin being the mystery candidate promised by Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Michael Kiernan as political theater.
“It’s easy to play political games in Des Moines that might not play as well around the state,” he said.
A key to defeating Grassley, who has rolled up more than 60 percent of the vote in winning re-election four times, is a candidate who appeals to voters outside Polk County, Iowa State University political scientist Steffen Schmidt said.
“Polk County is a nice place, but you have to have someone who can connect other places,” he said.
The folks in “other places” aren’t all that excited about her, Fiegen said late Thursday while driving home from meeting with Winneshiek County Democrats. A Clarence bankruptcy attorney, he said he’s logged 7,000 miles in the past month meeting with Iowans. Those discussions included rumors either Conlin or former Iowa First Lady Christie Vilsack might join the race.
“Frankly, they’re not that interested,” he said. While her campaign activity is impressive, “it’s yesterday’s news to many Democrats. People look at her and say, ‘been there, done that,’” a reference to her failed 1982 bid for governor.
“One analogy I heard is that she’s our party’s Doug Gross – rich, intelligent, well-connected, but can’t talk to rural Iowans,” Fiegen said. “People say she’s already proved that.”
In all fairness, Conlin didn’t lose by that much in 1982 (53 percent to 47 percent). During the Senate primary, Krause and Fiegen will need to show their road map for giving Grassley a competitive race. Iowa Democrats will decide who is the best candidate.
A new Iowa poll confirms that Terry Branstad is the toughest challenger for Chet Culver and that next year’s U.S. Senate race could become competitive. Research 2000 surveyed 600 “likely voters who vote regularly in state elections.” The poll was in the field from October 12 through 14, and you’ll find full results and crosstabs here.
Republicans may dismiss this as a “Democratic poll” because it was commissioned by the Daily Kos blog. However, Research 2000 is not a partisan firm, and the sample for this poll included 32 percent Democrats, 31 percent Republicans and 37 percent independents. That’s a smaller advantage for Democrats than the current Iowa voter registration numbers reflect. The proportion of independents in the sample might be a bit high for an off-year election, but that doesn’t necessarily skew against the Republican candidates.
I’ll highlight some of the key findings after the jump.
Senator Chuck Grassley complained this week that he is not being included in negotiations to merge the health care reform bills passed by the Senate Finance Committee and Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
Finance Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, “assured us that Republicans would be at the table through the process of negotiating a single bill,” Grassley said. “And obviously that’s kind of ruled out now by the fact that I am not a part of a bipartisan agreement.”
Look, the HELP Committee adopted about 160 Republican-proposed amendments to the health care bill during the markup process, yet not a single Republican voted to send that bill out of committee. Then Baucus bent over backwards to include Grassley in negotiations all summer, but he joined all the Finance Committee Republicans except for Olympia Snowe in voting against the health care bill. Why should Grassley have a say in how the HELP and Finance bills are combined?
This week, Grassley appears to have completely lost it, offering at least tacit support for radical “Tenther” theories that insist that health care reform may be unconstitutional.
“I’m not a lawyer, but let me tell you, I’ve listened to some lawyers speak on this. And you know, it’s a relatively new issue. I don’t think we’ve ever had this issue before of having to buy something. And a lot of constitutional lawyers, saying it is unconstitutional or at least in violation of the 10th Amendment. Now maybe states can do this, but can the federal government? So, I have my doubts.”
This was specifically responding to a question about individual mandates — a measure he’s already endorsed as a good idea that he supports.
Obvious inconsistencies notwithstanding, the notion that health care reform is “in violation of the 10th Amendment” is demonstrably ridiculous. The idea that “a lot of constitutional lawyers” see health care reform as unconstitutional is absurd.
Grassley’s misleading and inconsistent comments about health care reform have greatly harmed his reputation with Iowa Democrats and independents this year. It will be interesting to see whether he can repair the damage before next November. I don’t see him getting nearly as large a crossover vote as he has in his previous elections.
“Sources close to [former Governor Terry] Branstad” tell WHO-TV’s Dave Price that Branstad will announce his candidacy for a fifth term as governor this Friday. Whatever the date, it’s obvious Branstad has committed to the race.
Join me after the jump for recent news and unintentional comedy from the Branstad camp. You’ll also find a Bleeding Heartland reader poll at the bottom of this post.
The Senate Finance Committee approved its health care reform bill on a 14-9 vote yesterday, with all Democrats and Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine voting in favor. Ranking Republican Chuck Grassley, a key member of the committee’s “gang of six” negotiators this summer, joined the rest of the Republicans in voting against the bill. Speaking to the Des Moines Register Grassley “said he has no regrets about working with majority Democrats on the committee, only to oppose the bill. Given more time, he might have struck a deal, he said.”
This guy is the perfect picture of a bad-faith negotiator. From the Register:
Grassley said he objects most to provisions in the bill that would require Americans to obtain health insurance. But Grassley also said the bill does too little to block federal money being spent to provide abortions and provide coverage for illegal immigrants.
“Those aren’t the only things, but I think they are the most controversial or the most difficult to deal with,” Grassley told The Des Moines Register.
As Jason Hancock reported for the Iowa Independent last week, Grassley publicly supported the idea of an individual mandate to purchase health insurance this summer. I agree that requiring individuals to purchase insurance is problematic if there is no broad-based public health insurance option (because then the government is just subsidizing private insurers), but of course Grassley opposed the public option too.
In addition, the “gang of six” made changes in the bill before markup to address groundless Republican claims about illegal immigrants. According to PolitiFact, the “Baucus plan explicitly states that no federal funds – whether through tax credits or cost-sharing credits – could be used to pay for abortions (again, except for rape, incest, or the life of the mother).”
Trying to cut deals with Grassley is a waste of time. For more on that point, check out the skipper’s recent diary.
Speaking of Grassley, Cityview’s Civic Skinny thinks he should be worried about a potential race against attorney Roxanne Conlin. When a reporter asked Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack whether his wife, Christie Vilsack, might run against Grassley, he replied, “You should ask her about that.” (UPDATE: Dave Price did ask her and wonders whether she is the mystery candidate.)
As for the health care bill, the Finance Committee and HELP Committee versions have to be merged before a floor vote. It’s imperative that a public option be included in the version sent to the floor, and HELP Committee representative Chris Dodd says he will fight for that. On the other hand, Snowe and a few Democrats, like Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, might vote against the bill on the floor if it contains a public option. Chris Bowers wrote more at Open Left about the merging process in the House and Senate.
Via the Senate Guru blog I saw that Survey USA released results from its late September poll of 600 adults in Iowa (margin of error 4.1 percent). The survey measured Senator Chuck Grassley’s approval rating at 50 percent. That’s the lowest figure ever for Grassley by this pollster, and you can see from this graph that Grassley’s trendlines are ugly. A full 40 percent of respondents disapprove of Grassley’s performance. His high-profile role in the health care reform debate seems to have hurt his image. Senate Guru notes, “Grassley is also below 50% approval among independents (48%) and self-described moderates (47%).”
The Des Moines Register published a new article Monday on rumors that a well-known and well-funded Democrat will give Grassley “the race of his life.” Speculation seems to be centering on former First Lady Christie Vilsack, who is now executive director of the Iowa Initiative, and prominent attorney Roxanne Conlin, a onetime U.S. Attorney who was the Democratic nominee for governor in 1982.
I was surprised to see that Survey USA didn’t find nearly as much of a gender gap concerning Governor Chet Culver. Culver’s at 41 percent approve/48 percent disapprove overall. Among men and women, 41 percent approve of Culver’s performance. The difference is that 55 percent of men said they disapprove of Culver, versus only 44 percent of women (a full 15 percent of female respondents answered “not sure”). If I were running Culver’s re-election campaign, I would put a high priority on building support among women voters. If a well-known woman makes a serious run at Grassley, that should help boost turnout among women Democrats and leaners.
Incidentally, Swing State Project changed its rating on the Iowa governor’s race from “race to watch” (but safe for the incumbent) to “likely D.” They may revise that rating again if former Governor Terry Branstad enters the campaign.
Survey USA’s Iowa sample in September consisted of 35 percent Democrats, 29 percent Republicans, and 31 percent independents. The sample for their August Iowa poll was quite different: 28 percent Democrats, 34 percent Republicans, and 35 percent independents. That alone could explain why Grassley’s approval rating fell from August to September, while Culver’s rose a bit from his all-time Survey USA low in August.
It’s obviously way too early to predict what proportion of Democrats and Republicans will turn out to vote in Iowa next November. The GOP primary for governor could energize that party’s base or cause lasting divisions. The Democratic base may or may not be excited, depending on what Culver and state legislators accomplish next session and whether Grassley’s race becomes competitive. Unemployment seems likely to keep rising.
Late in the afternoon [on Wednesday], Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), the top Republican on the committee, requested consideration of the “Grassley F-1 Modified Amendment.” Its goal: eliminate $7 billion a year in fees that the government would charge private health insurance companies, and make up the shortfall by reducing benefits to poor people and legal immigrants.
It was dangerously close to a parody: Republicans demanding that fees be reduced on a profitable industry and shifted to low-income Americans. But Grassley pressed on, unafraid. The fees on the corporations, he said, are a “bad idea” and would undoubtedly result in higher insurance premiums. “I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment, to strike the fees,” he exhorted.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) recognized the fat target that Grassley had just set up. “I think it’s a ‘message amendment,’ ” he said, suggesting Grassley was sending a symbolic signal to the conservative base. “It certainly takes on legal immigrants and Medicaid in a very sharp way.”
Grassley looked hurt. “You don’t really believe that this is a message amendment, do you?”
Why so cynical, Senator Rockefeller? I take Senator Grassley at his word. He would rather reduce health care coverage for poor people and immigrants (during a recession!) than force a profitable industry to pay higher fees.
In case anyone is wondering, I still have no idea who the mystery Grassley challenger might be.
UPDATE: Grassley also failed on Wednesday to get the committee to adopt “that would have required beneficiaries of Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program to show a photo ID in order to enroll.” However, the committee unanimously adopted Grassley’s amendment “that would require members of Congress to get their health insurance through a proposed federal exchange.”
As expected, the Senate Finance Committee rejected two amendments yesterday that would have added a public health insurance option to the health care reform bill Chairman Max Baucus drafted with a big assist from industry lobbyists. Five Democrats voted with all the committee Republicans against Senator Jay Rockefeller’s amendment, which would have created a national public option tied to Medicare rates. Three Democrats also joined Republicans to vote down Senator Chuck Schumer’s much weaker “national level playing field” public option. CA Berkeley WV liveblogged yesterday’s hearing for Congress Matters.
Senator Chuck Grassley sang the same old song about the “government run plan” forcing private insurance companies out of business. He got a little tripped up when Senator Chuck Schumer asked him for his views on Medicare, though.
“I think that Medicare is part of the social fabric of America just like Social Security is,” Mr. Grassley said. “To say that I support it is not to say that it’s the best system that it could be.”
“But it is a government-run plan,” Mr. Schumer shot back.
Mr. Grassley, a veteran Senate debater, insisted that Medicare did not pose a threat to the private insurance industry. “It’s not easy to undo a Medicare plan without also hurting a lot of private initiatives that are coupled with it,” he said.
Several Senate Democrats, including Tom Harkin, insisted yesterday that they will get some kind of public option into the bill that reaches the Senate floor. After the jump you’ll find lots of links on the battles to come.
I agree that the public option is not dead yet, but for it to survive, President Barack Obama and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid will need to do a lot more than they’ve done so far to lean on the Senate conservadems.
Iowa Democratic Party chair Michael Kiernan spoke confidently today about a “first-round draft pick” who is ready to run against Senator Chuck Grassley, Kay Henderson reported for Radio Iowa.
“I’m going to tell you here today that Chuck Grassley is going to be in for the race of his life.” […]
“You’re just going to have to wait to find out,” Kiernan said this morning during taping of this weekend’s “Iowa Press” program. “We want to wait ’til, obviously, after Terry Branstad announced his candidacy for governor.”
Kiernan isn’t revealing the characteristics this phantom candidate may have either. “I’ll just wait for the announcement,” Kiernan said. “You will be impressed.” […]
“I’m here to tell you today that it will be the toughest race that Chuck Grassley has faced since John Culver,” Kiernan said.
Grassley defeated Senator John Culver (Governor Chet Culver’s father) in the 1980 Reagan landslide.
Speaking to reporters after today’s taping, Kiernan said the big-name challenger is “100 percent committed” to this race.
Your guess is as good as mine. A retired politician? Christie Vilsack? A celebrity in a non-political field? Someone from the business world? (Retired Principal Financial Group CEO Barry Griswell has ruled out running, as has Fred Hubbell, the incoming interim director of the Iowa Department of Economic Development.)
Grassley’s approval rating has fallen this year, but it’ll take a lot to convince me that we can defeat him. He’s still got a strong brand name and 30 years of constituent service behind him.
Changes to the bill have been frustrating, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) told reporters at a press conference, particularly given that the Republicans — Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Olympia Snowe of Maine — are, in his opinion, just stalling for time.
“You just watch as the bill diminishes in its scope, in its coverage, in its ferocity to try to attack the problem. I don’t know where it will come out,” Rockefeller said. “My own personal view is that those three Republicans won’t be there to vote it out of committee when it comes right down to it, so that this all will have been a three-or-four-month delay game, which is exactly what the Republicans want.”
No Republicans stood with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus last week as he finally unveiled what David Waldman described as “a plan that amounts to capitulating to every Republican demand, and then adding a heaping pile of political suicide on top of it.” The bill is in markup this week, and CA Berkeley WV has been blogging the Senate Finance Committee meetings for Congress Matters (day one, day two and day three).
Where does ranking Finance Committee member Grassley stand after Baucus bent over backwards to keep negotiating with him all summer? After the jump I’ve posted the relevant portion of a transcript from Grassley’s September 24 telephone news conference with Iowa reporters. The short version is, he’s against the bill because:
1. The individual mandate to buy health insurance amounts to “[q]uite a steep tax for people that maybe don’t pay a tax.”
2. Democrats supposedly were “not willing to go far enough” on enforcement to make sure illegal immigrants wouldn’t be covered.
3. Democrats supposedly “weren’t willing to go far enough to make sure that the subsidy through the tax credit was not used to finance abortions.”
4. You shouldn’t be “increasing taxes and cutting Medicare” when “we’re in depression.”
I told Iowa Republicans not to worry about Grassley voting for any health care reform bill. Senate Democrats should reject the concessions Baucus made to win GOP votes that are now off the table.
The Republican polling firm Rasmussen Reports surveyed 500 “likely voters” in Iowa on September 22 and came up with bad numbers for Governor Chet Culver. Former Governor Terry Branstad leads Culver by 54 percent to 34 percent, and Bob Vander Plaats leads Culver by 43 percent to 39 percent. Culver’s approval rating is 43 percent, with 53 percent of respondents disapproving of the job he is doing.
Topline results and favorability ratings are here. Culver was viewed very or somewhat favorably by 43 percent of respondents and viewed very or somewhat unfavorably by 50 percent. Branstad’s favorability was 64 percent, and his unfavorable numbers were just 29 percent. Vander Plaats was viewed favorably by 45 percent and unfavorably by 30 percent.
These numbers will encourage Branstad, who appears likely to seek his old job again. He has said he’ll decide by October, and I’ve heard rumors that Branstad will announce his candidacy very soon (September 28 according to one person, October 3 according to someone else). I believe that the numbers we see for Branstad this month will be his high water mark, since no one has campaigned against him for 15 years.
Vander Plaats will surely cite the Rasmussen poll as proof that he can beat Culver. The whole “draft Branstad” movement grew out of fears that Vander Plaats could not win a general election.
The recent Selzer Iowa poll for the Des Moines Register found much better numbers for Culver (50 percent approve, 39 percent disapprove). Selzer polled 803 Iowans over a three-day period (3.5 percent margin of error), while Rasmussen polled 500 “likely voters” on a single day (4.5 percent margin of error). Selzer did not poll Culver against Branstad or any other Republican.
I am seeking further information about the likely voter screen Rasmussen used, as well as the proportion of Democrats, Republicans and no-party voters in the sample. I will update this post if I receive more details. If any Rasmussen premium subscriber is reading, feel free to post a comment here or e-mail me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com.
UPDATE: The commenters at Swing State Project trust Selzer a lot more than Rasmussen. One person pointed out that in late July, Rasmussen found Senator Barbara Boxer of California leading Republican Carly Fiorina by just four points (45-41), while a few weeks later Research 2000 found Boxer leading Fiorina 52-31. It appears that Rasmussen’s likely voter screen produces a sample skewed a bit toward Republicans.
It would have been helpful if the Des Moines Register’s recent poll had asked respondents about Culver and Branstad and Vander Plaats. Craig Robinson is wrong to imply that the Register might have asked those questions and decided to cover up the results. The Register published the full questionnaire from its recent poll. Some pollsters don’t think head to head matchups are useful this far out from an election.
Governor Chet Culver announced on Tuesday that he has appointed Fred Hubbell to serve as interim director of the Iowa Department of Economic Development (IDED). Hubbell will start working there on October 5. He will continue to serve on the Power Fund board, only he will now be IDED’s representative on that body. Last month the rumor mill floated Hubbell’s name as a possible challenger to Senator Chuck Grassley, but he said he was not interested in running for Senate.
Culver picked Joe O’Hern, deputy director at the Iowa Finance Authority, to be the new interim deputy director at IDED, focusing on IDED’s flood recovery efforts. This press release from the governor’s office contains more background on Hubbell and O’Hern.
When information was first brought to my attention last week about Iowa’s film tax credit program, I was troubled. But as we began our investigation into this program, and more information has come to light, frankly, I am outraged – not only that a program involving millions of Iowa tax dollars was so mismanaged but that some companies were taking advantage of this situation.
This problem first came to my attention last week when I was traveling on Tuesday with former director Tramontina. At that time, I asked him to prepare for me a memo outlining problems with the program. And, after receiving that memo, I took immediate steps to protect the taxpayers of Iowa. […]
These actions are intended to protect the best interest of Iowans, and not to harm the growing film and television industry in our state. This program should continue only after we have the controls, oversight, and due diligence in place to assure that it operates properly.
But, while there were clearly not the controls and oversight in place at the Iowa Film Office, we need to make sure that the film and TV productions in our state are following the rules.
For example, projects must have commitments for at least 50% of their funding before even applying for assistance under the program.
In addition, projects are not to receive tax credits until after their work is complete and they have submitted invoices of qualified expenses.
And, we expect film and television productions to obey Iowa’s labor laws – which mean people get paid for the work they do. That does not mean they wait until after their tax credit has been approved.
Iowans will not be taken for suckers. While we need to make changes to strengthen management of this program, we are not going to be taken advantage of – and if we are, we are going to claw back and make sure any money wrongfully provided is returned.
If something good can come out of this scandal, I hope that all of Iowa’s tax credit programs will now receive greater scrutiny. Even if there are no other tax credits being abused, we may not be getting our money’s worth for all of these programs. In a weak economy that puts pressure on state revenues, wasteful tax credits need to be on the chopping block along with government spending.
Senator Jay Rockefeller was excluded from the bipartisan group of Finance Committee members who worked on the bill Chairman Max Baucus unveiled on Wednesday, so he spent part of his summer vacation researching the fake public option favored by some “gang of six” members. He reported on his findings in an open letter to Baucus and ranking member Chuck Grassley. You should click through and read Rockefeller’s whole letter, but here are some excerpts:
“First, there has been no significant research into consumer co-ops as a model for the broad expansion of health insurance. What we do know, however, is that this model was tried in the early part of the 20th century and largely failed. As the USDA states in its response letter, ‘Government support for the cooperative approach to delivering universal health care was reduced during [World War II] and terminated afterward.’ This is a dying business model for health insurance. Moving forward with health insurance cooperatives would expose Americans, who are hoping for a better health care system, to a health care model that has already been tried and largely failed in the vast majority of the country.
“Second, there is a lack of consistent data about the total number of consumer health insurance cooperatives in existence today, and there have been no analyses of the impact of existing health insurance cooperatives on consumers.
“Third, all of the consumer health insurance cooperatives identified by the [U.S. Department of Agriculture] and [National Cooperative Business Association] operate and function just like private health insurance companies. Therefore, it is unclear how expanding consumer health insurance cooperatives would actually achieve greater affordability for consumers or bring about greater competition in the private market…
(The proposed co-ops had very little effect on the estimates of total enrollment in the exchanges or federal costs because, as they are described in the specifications, they seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country or to noticeably affect federal subsidy payments.)
In the 1990s, Iowa adopted a law to encourage the development of health care co-ops. One was created, and it died within two years. Although the law is still on the books, the state does not have a co-op now, said Susan E. Voss, the Iowa insurance commissioner.
Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield collects about 70 percent of the premiums paid in the private insurance market in Iowa and South Dakota.
It’s past time for President Obama to stop sending out White House staff and cabinet secretaries to signal that Obama might accept cooperatives as an alternative to a public health insurance option.
Here’s hoping that even in the absence of presidential leadership, Rockefeller can get strong amendments attached to the Baucus bill or make sure it never gets out of the Senate Finance Committee.
Having been raised by a Republican of the now-extinct Rockefeller variety, I am often struck by how extreme the GOP has become. Chuck Grassley and Terry Branstad were on the far right in the early 1980s, but many Iowa conservatives now consider them “moderate” or even “liberal.”
Mainstream extremism in the Republican Party is depressing on many levels. It fosters ignorance, as when Iowa Republicans are led to believe that the judiciary is not supposed to interpret the constitution. It encourages politicians to put their theology ahead of civil laws.
Most troubling is when prominent conservatives use language that condones physical violence or “revolution” to resist Democratic policy proposals. I fear that people will get hurt or killed if some mentally unstable person takes these appeals too literally.
Salon.com published a feature today on 12 U.S. senators who “for reasons of questionable IQ or eccentricity, because they are vapid, stubborn or ornery, can fairly be called knuckleheads.” Here’s why Chuck Grassley made the list:
Evidence of knuckleheadedness: Oh, pretty much just the entire debate over healthcare reform. Grassley’s the primary Republican negotiator on healthcare in the Senate, and Democrats have been working hard to please him, but at this point no one besides Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., understands why.
Never mind that Grassley has said there’s almost no chance he’ll actually vote for the final bill, no matter how many concessions to him are included in it. He’s actually gone so far as to claim that provisions in the legislation that would provide coverage for end-of-life counseling are really setting up a “government program that determines if you’re going to pull the plug on grandma.” What he didn’t mention? He’s voted for end-of-life counseling before.
And don’t even get us started on his use of Twitter.
I’m old enough to remember when first-term U.S. Senator Grassley was known as “Tweedle Dumber,” but let’s be honest–Salon’s staff have shown here that the man is shrewd. Although he seems to have no intention of voting for health care reform, and his vote is not needed in a chamber with 60 Democrats, Grassley has made himself a major player on this issue.
Moreover, Grassley has strung along President Obama so successfully that the White House press secretary still supported the “gang of six” bipartisan health care negotiations, even after Grassley fueled unsubstantiated rumors about “pulling the plug on Grandma.” Who’s acting like a knucklehead?
This summer, Grassley continued to disappoint the right by negotiating with other Senate Finance Committee members on health care reform. State Representative Kent Sorenson wrote an open letter to Grassley, pleading with him to provide “principled and bold leadership”. Sorenson’s letter is the most-viewed post ever published on The Iowa Republican blog, where Craig Robinson warned last month,
The longer Sen. Grassley strings along Iowa Republicans, the more difficult his re-election effort may become. At the beginning of the year, it would have been absurd to suggest that Sen. Grassley could face a legitimate primary challenge. Now, with each and every passing day that Grassley flirts with supporting some version of health care reform, the possibility of a primary challenge grows.
Still, the disappointment with Grassley is real. The trouble is, you can’t defeat an incumbent just by being mad, and as Taniel points out, no Republican appears likely to run against Grassley in next year’s primary. Salier has ruled himself out, as has Sorenson (though I wish Sorenson would run for Senate, giving Iowa Democrats an open seat target in House district 74).
Social conservatives are likely to focus on the governor’s race between now and June 2010. Bob Vander Plaats will officially announce his candidacy on Labor Day and will need all the help he can get from the religious right if former Governor Terry Branstad gets back into politics. Yesterday Vander Plaats promised to give homeschooling parents and those whose children attend private schools more influence over education policy. If the GOP primary comes down to Vander Plaats against Branstad, education is sure to become an issue, since some Republicans feel Branstad didn’t do enough to fight the teacher’s union or oppose sex education. The Network of Iowa Christian Home Educators is large and well-organized.
Some Iowa legislative districts may also be targeted by social conservatives, if there is an open GOP primary or a Republican incumbent deemed to be doing too little to advance the religious right’s causes. The Iowa GOP is in a bit of a bind; party strategists understand that they should emphasize economic issues, but some social conservatives become angry when Republicans say too little about abortion or same-sex marriage. We saw this dynamic play out in the recent House district 90 special election. Although Republican candidate Stephen Burgmeier toed the line on the so-called “pro-family” agenda, two conservatives ran against him because he wasn’t emphasizing their issues. The two minor candidates received 282 votes combined, while Burgmeier lost to Democrat Curt Hanson by 107 votes.
You can run a statehouse campaign on a shoestring, while taking on Grassley in a GOP primary would be a very expensive hopeless cause. The religious right may give other establishment Republicans headaches next year, but Grassley is home free.
This statewide poll of 600 adults was conducted on August 26 and 27 and is said to have a margin of error of 4 percent. It’s the first time any pollster has found the president below 50 percent approval in Iowa, and the first time any pollster has found the governor’s approval in the 30s. For more details about various demographic groups in this poll, you can find Culver’s chart here, charts on Harkin and Grassley here, and Obama’s chart here.
Looking at Survey USA’s trendlines for Culver since he took office, I noticed that Culver’s disapproval number is basically unchanged this summer, but his approval number has dropped significantly from 42 percent in June and 44 percent in July to 36 percent in late August.
Before anyone panics, remember that Survey USA’s approval numbers for Culver tend to run low compared to other pollsters. In early July, the poll commissioned by The Iowa Republican blog found Culver’s approve/disapprove numbers to be 53 percent/41 percent. Later the same month, Hill Research Consultants’ poll for the Iowa First Foundation found Culver’s favorability at 52 percent. (The Iowa First Foundation did not release the governor’s approval number from that poll, but you better believe they would have if the number had been in the 30s or even the low 40s.) Meanwhile, Survey USA pegged Culver’s approval at 44 percent on July 20.
Survey USA’s numbers for Obama, Harkin and Grassley are also noticeably down in the latest poll. Obama is at a record low in Iowa. Grassley’s approval of 54 percent is the lowest Survey USA has found in at least four years. I couldn’t find a similar graph for Harkin’s numbers, but it’s been a long time since I can remember seeing his approval rating below 50.
Of course, it’s possible that the recession and the health care debate have affected Iowans’ view of all political leaders. Still, I would like to see these numbers confirmed by some other pollster. Even with the best sampling techniques, approximately 1 in 20 polls is wrong just by chance (“wrong” meaning that the true state of public opinion lies outside the margin of error for that poll). Right now this poll looks like an outlier.
I also agree with Steve Singiser that if Culver were this unpopular in Iowa, Democrat Curt Hanson probably would not have won yesterday’s special election in House district 90 (a swing district). The Republicans ran at least two television ads linking Hanson to Culver (see here and here).
I’m looking forward to the next Selzer and Associates poll for the Des Moines Register, which probably will come later this month or in early October.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America have produced a new television commercial, which asks which side Chuck Grassley is on:
Speaking of which side Grassley’s on, Monday’s Des Moines Register reports on our senior senator’s massive campaign contributions from health industry interest groups. Thomas Beaumont’s story was based on numbers compiled by Maplight.org.
Meanwhile, Representative Bruce Braley confirmed on Friday that he is running for re-election in Iowa’s first Congressional district. I consider him highly likely to run for U.S. Senate when one of our current senators retires.
Fred S. Hubbell was a member of the Executive Board and Chairman of Insurance and Asset Management Americas for ING Group. Mr. Hubbell retired from ING Group’s Executive Board effective April 25, 2006. Mr. Hubbell was formerly Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Equitable of Iowa Companies, an insurance holding company, serving in his position as Chairman from May 1993 to October 1997, and as President and Chief Executive Officer from May 1989 to October 1997.
Charlotte Hubbell, Fred Hubbell’s wife, serves on the Environmental Protection Commission.
Senator Chuck Grassley already has two likely Democratic opponents (Bob Krause and Tom Fiegen), but rumors persist that a better-known Iowa Democrat is thinking seriously about this race.
Whether or not Braley intends to run for Senate next year, he could raise his profile and support by promising to work as hard to keep a strong public option in the health care reform bill as Grassley is working to keep one out. (Progressive activists have now raised nearly $400,000 for House Democrats who promise not to vote for any health care bill lacking a strong public option.) A joint statement on behalf of Braley’s Populist Caucus would do even more to bolster Braley’s reputation as a fighter for a strong health care reform bill.
Other names being floated on various blogs include former first lady Christie Vilsack, Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie, Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge, Attorney General Tom Miller, and Mike Blouin, a former member of Congress who headed the state Department of Economic Development when Tom Vilsack was governor. Blouin narrowly lost the 2006 gubernatorial primary to Chet Culver, so he has recent experience campaigning statewide. On several issues Blouin and I are as far apart as any two Democrats could be, but I thought displacedyankdem made a strong case for him:
Even if he’s not in the very highest tier of candidates (Vilsack, Miller, and Braley), he is:
a)several tiers higher than Grassley’s past 3 opponents
b)likely to automatically get at least 35% and likely 40% of the vote (somewhere between 7 and 12 points higher than the last 3)
c)a strong enough candidate to take advantage if there is a Macaca moment a la Jim Webb 2006
d)likely to tie down millions of dollars in GOP money
e)risk free in that he’s not giving up an office
f)just young enough to be on the edge of viability (maybe I’m making too much out of the seniority thing)
Since running against Grassley will be an uphill battle, I would like Democrats to nominate someone who doesn’t have to give up a current elected position.
On a related note, Grassley is still playing rope-a-dope with the White House, this morning backing down on his ridiculous comments about pulling the plug on grandma. I hope key people in the Obama administration finally understand that nothing is to be gained by seeking a compromise with Grassley. The Senate Finance Committee “gang of six” is taking two weeks off from negotiating, probably because delays help Republican efforts to defeat health care reform.
Share any thoughts about Grassley or the 2010 Senate race in this thread.
Most of the Iowans in Congress have health care town-hall meetings scheduled during the remainder of the summer recess. Some of these have been moved to larger venues because of high expected turnout. It’s important for supporters of strong health care reform not to let the loudest voices on the other side drown out debate. Senator Chuck Grassley has cited town-hall protesters as a reason for scaling back reform efforts.
If you live in the first, second or third districts, it’s especially important for you to make your voice heard. Representatives Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell have all signed on to support Health Care for America Now’s core principles for health care reform. They all belong to the House Populist Caucus, which stands for six key issues, including “Providing affordable, accessible, quality health care for all Americans.”
We have a bridge that needs repair in our community. It would take about $350,000. I am happy to keep driving a different road to avoid it if we all get access to affordable health care instead. Any Democrat who trades his or her vote to keep the public option in return for a bridge, a day care center, or a highway expansion, should be publicly embarrassed. […]
While you are calling congressional public option supporters to thank them, tell them you don’t want any bridges if it means you don’t get affordable access to health care. You could also mention that if they vote for a bill without the public option, you will want to know what they got from the White House in return.
If you attend any health-care town-halls, please consider posting a diary here about your experience, like hei and iowademocrat did last week.
Final note: it would be great for some prominent Iowan to steal this idea from Terry McAuliffe and offer to host a fundraiser for the first Iowa representative in Congress who pledges not to vote for any health care bill without a public option.
