Prominent central Iowa conservatives are voicing concerns about David Young, the GOP nominee in the third Congressional district. Young can’t afford to run too far to the right in his race against former State Senator Staci Appel. He needs to keep the margin close in Polk County, because the Republican voter registration advantage in IA-03 isn’t large enough to save him if he gets blown out among suburban moderates. Consequently, Young has taken several middle-of-the-road positions during the general election campaign. During his first debate against Appel, he offered qualified support for a minimum wage increase. Last week, he told the Des Moines Register’s editorial board that he favors some form of legal status for some undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.

Speaking at a health care forum in Des Moines yesterday, Young said the Affordable Care Act is “here to stay,” so Congress will “have to work to make it better.” Whereas many Republicans have pledged to repeal “Obamacare,” Young said he’ll “be at the table trying to fix it.” That pragmatic stance contradicts his promise in a pre-primary television commercial to make Obamacare disappear.

Although Young has Iowa Right To Life’s support for the general election, some “pro-life” activists haven’t forgotten that he once told a journalist abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest.

Social conservative talk radio host Steve Deace laid out his case against voting for Young in a Facebook post yesterday. I’ve enclosed excerpts after the jump. Many Iowa Democrats dismiss Deace as irrelevant, but his show is broadcast on two stations in the Council Bluffs area (the second-largest metro in IA-03) and one station in Des Moines. During the next three weeks, you can be sure Deace will urge listeners not to vote for Young.

Casting a protest vote will be easy for right-wing Republicans, because two conservative candidates qualified for the ballot in IA-03. Bleeding Heartland posted background on Libertarian Ed Wright and independent Bryan Jack Holder here.

UPDATE: On October 14, Deace bashed Young on his website and featured on his radio broadcast a segment on “John Boehner’s next plan to screw conservatives.” Pointing to a blog post claiming the U.S. House speaker wants to expand his majority “so the crazies you hate will be irrelevant” in Congress, Deace commented, “Another reason not to vote for David Young, as if he hasn’t provided enough of them already.”

SECOND UPDATE: The Iowa Republican publisher Craig Robinson had a go at Young’s “schizophrenic” campaign. I’ve added excerpts at the end of this post.  

Whose idea was it to hold so many Iowa candidate debates on Saturday nights this year? At 7 pm this evening, Bruce Braley and Joni Ernst face off in the second of three scheduled debates. (C-SPAN will televise nationwide, and KWQC TV will televise in the Quad Cities area.) Immediately after that, KWQC will broadcast the second and final debate between Representative Dave Loebsack and Mariannette Miller-Meeks in the second Congressional district race. (That debate will be taped earlier in the day.)

I won’t be able to watch either showdown live because of a family wedding, but I will catch up later with some links and recap, as well as highlights from the new Selzer poll for the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome. A bunch of links related to the IA-Sen race are after the jump. I still see the debate as equally risky for Braley and Ernst, for different reasons.

UPDATE: The new Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll by Selzer & Co has Braley and Ernst nearly tied. Ernst is ahead by a statistically insignificant 47 percent to 46 percent. I do not believe Ernst lost a lot of ground during the last two weeks. I believe she was never as far ahead as the last Selzer poll indicated. Other polls in the field around the same time showed a much closer race. In particular, I do not believe that in two weeks, Braley went from a 25-point deficit among men to a 16-point deficit now.

SECOND UPDATE: The full debate video is on the KWQC website.

THIRD UPDATE: I wish every undecided voter in Iowa had seen this debate. Having finally watched the full video myself, I understand why shills for Ernst kept reaching for their security blankets on Saturday night. Talk about a disastrous performance. She repeatedly fell back on rote talking points that didn’t answer the question. On several occasions it was apparent that she did not understand the policy implications of her own words. I particularly loved how she insisted that the bipartisan Senate-passed immigration reform bill was “amnesty,” even though Braley had already explained why it was different from amnesty. She talked about securing the border, even though Braley had already explained that we would have 20,000 more border control agents if that immigration reform bill had become law. Toward the end of that exchange, though, I was pleasantly surprised to hear Ernst say she would not vote to repeal President Barack Obama’s DACA program (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). A lot of conservatives were presumably surprised too, but not in a pleasant way.

At the end of this post I’ve linked to several pieces summarizing the debate highlights.

Here’s a new thread for any comments on the race between David Young and Staci Appel in Iowa’s third Congressional district. Some stories that caught my eye in the last few days:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee shared with Roll Call partial results from a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll taken on October 1 and 2, which showed Appel ahead of Young by 49 percent to 42 percent, with 9 percent undecided. That’s a bigger lead for Appel than in the previous DCCC poll, despite weeks of Republican attacks on the phony “passports for terrorists” issue.

Speaking of which, I agree with Kathie Obradovich’s take (excerpted below) on the way the candidates handled “passports for terrorists” during their second debate.

Young’s campaign released a memo yesterday hailing some $800,000 in third-quarter fundraising and an internal poll allegedly showing Young ahead. I’ve enclosed that memo and the Appel campaign’s response at the end of this post. The polling firm Tarrance Group used strange methodology. Whereas the survey toplines showed Young leading by 43 percent to 41 percent, with other candidates taking 6 percent and 10 percent undecided, the Tarrance Group claimed Young was ahead by 47 percent to 43 percent based on “projected turnout.”

I look forward to digging into the details of the third-quarter FEC reports, which should be released by October 15. I would expect GOP donors to flock to Senator Chuck Grassley’s longtime top aide. But I don’t understand why Young would cancel television advertising time if his campaign was bringing in so much money in the third quarter. Even if he used some of the money to pay off debts incurred during the second quarter, he should have had plenty left over for a full-court press on television.

The DCCC has increased its television advertising buy in the Omaha market, which covers roughly 20 percent of the population in IA-03. To my knowledge, neither Young nor the National Republican Congressional Committee has aired tv ads in Omaha lately.

The DCCC has been running radio ads bashing “DC David Young” for supporting tax breaks for the wealthy, even as he backs cuts to education funding (such as eliminating the U.S. Department of Education). A similar television spot has been on the air for a while. Although education funding and tax policy are important issues, I suspect most voters tune out cookie-cutter negative political advertising.

Conservative blogger Shane Vander Hart thinks Young has problems with the GOP base because of some comments on abortion, his qualified support for a minimum wage increase, and legal residency for some undocumented immigrants. News flash: IA-03 is a swing district. Young has to communicate some level of moderation on at least a few issues. Vander Hart’s comments make me wonder whether hard-core conservatives will go for Libertarian candidate Ed Wright as a protest vote.

I’ve enclosed below excerpts from Young’s comments to the Des Moines Register’s editorial board about how to handle an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.

Former State Senator Staci Appel and David Young are holding their second debate, hosted by KCCI-TV and the Des Moines Register at Simpson College in Indianola. I’m live-blogging after the jump. KCCI will have the video up later on their website.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.

When you don’t like a law on the books, you have a few options. You can work to change the law through the political system, such as by lobbying legislators, voting out incumbents, or running for the legislature yourself. You can challenge the law through the court system, building a case that the law was improperly enacted or violates constitutional rights. Or you can use civil disobedience to call attention to the unjust law.

A growing number of conservatives are embracing a fourth option: make it a crime to implement or enforce laws you don’t like. As Talking Points Memo first reported on Friday, State Senator Joni Ernst answered yes to the following question on the Campaign for Liberty’s 2012 questionnaire: “Will you support legislation to nullify ObamaCare and authorize state and local law enforcement to arrest federal officials attempting to implement the unconstitutional health care scheme known as ObamaCare?”

At the time Ernst filled out that survey, no one knew that Democrats would retain control of the Iowa Senate after the 2012 election. She could easily have found herself in the majority, voting for a bill to make it a crime to implement the 2010 health care reform law.

Nor was this an isolated position taken by Ernst. Today’s Sunday Des Moines Register features a front-page article by Jennifer Jacobs analyzing bills and resolutions co-sponsored by Ernst in the Iowa Senate and Representative Bruce Braley in the U.S. House. This nugget was buried in the middle:

Ernst has 12 gun-rights bills in her portfolio. They include “stand your ground” legislation that would allow Iowans to use reasonable force, including deadly force, if necessary to protect themselves or others from death or serious injury. Another bill would eliminate the requirement for a permit to carry a weapon. And another would criminalize enforcement of federal gun laws.

I knew Ernst was for just about everything on the gun activists’ wish list, but I hadn’t heard that she believes it should be a crime to enforce federal laws such as background checks. Either she doesn’t read things carefully before she signs them, or she truly believes enforcing some federal laws should become a state crime. But no worries, I’m sure she’ll have a perfectly rehearsed excuse for taking this ridiculous position in the unlikely event someone asks her about it at one of the two remaining IA-Sen debates (October 11 in the Quad Cities and October 16 in Sioux City).

UPDATE: Maybe Ernst should go back to the women’s shelter where she used to volunteer and explain to the women why their abusers should have unlimited freedom to carry guns, with no permit required.

In a few minutes Representative Bruce Braley and State Senator Joni Ernst will start their first debate at Simpson College in Indianola. You can watch the debate on KCCI-TV in the Des Moines viewing area and on C-SPAN across the country (in central Iowa that’s channel 95).

I previewed what I see as the biggest potential pitfalls for each candidate here. I’ll be liveblogging after the jump and will also update later with some reaction to the debate.

UPDATE: KCCI has posted the debate video online. I cleaned up some typos and filled in gaps in the liveblog below.

Democrat Staci Appel and Republican David Young are holding their first debate in the third Congressional district race. Iowa Public Television will live-stream the Council Bluffs debate on the “Iowa Press” page. You can also watch on C-SPAN 2, which is channel 87 for Mediacom subscribers in Des Moines. I will be live-blogging the debate after the jump.

P.S.-I’ve also enclosed below the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s latest television commercial against Young. The format seems a little stale, and I wonder how many people even remember Young’s magic-themed ads before the Republican primary.

UPDATE: I didn’t realize the Appel campaign is also running a new ad. Scroll to the end to see that video and transcript.

FRIDAY UPDATE: Iowa Public Television has the debate video up on the “Iowa Press” page and will broadcast this debate tonight at 7 pm and Sunday morning.

I’ve added lots more below, including post-debate spin and Young’s second television commercial of the general election campaign, which started running on September 12. Young is presenting himself as a reasonable, moderate, experienced problem-solver. The theme of the Democratic communication is that Young spent the debate hiding from more radical positions he took as a Republican primary candidate for U.S. Senate and later for IA-03. That’s accurate, but the reality is that Young does not present as a wild-eyed extremist. Voters may conclude that he was just pandering to wingnuts during the primary campaign.

Four-term Democratic incumbent Dave Loebsack and his three-time Republican challenger Mariannette Miller-Meeks are debating in Iowa City tonight, starting at 7 pm. Iowa Public TV is live-streaming the event here. I’ll post updates after the jump.

Any comments about the race in Iowa’s second Congressional district are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: The archived video is now available at IPTV’s site. My comments are below.  

More than a half-dozen potential presidential candidates have visited Iowa since Bleeding Heartland’s last news roundup on the field. Any comments about the 2016 Iowa caucus campaign are welcome in this thread. Lots of links are after the jump.

Lest anyone think that ordinary people are unable to influence public discourse, consider this: Rand Paul’s latest Iowa visit will likely be remembered for how he ran away from the DREAMers who confronted Representative Steve King.

Today was the 3rd The Family Leadership Summit hosted by The Family Leader. This event has become a kingmaking event for Bob Vander Plaats and The Family Leader with national and state Republican officials coming to kiss their rings. This event has been talked about as replacing the Ames Straw Poll. For the second year in a row – I decided to make the trek to see what this is all about with allied organization – Progress Iowa.

Six-term Representative Steve King made news this week in typically cringe-worthy ways: talking about impeaching the president, getting caught on video mixing it up with a “DREAMer” who approached him.

Meanwhile, King’s Democratic challenger Jim Mowrer launched his first television commercial on August 1. I’ve posted the video and transcript of this 30-second biographical spot after the jump. According to the Mowrer campaign, the ad will run on broadcast television in Des Moines and Sioux City, and on cable in Des Moines, Sioux City, Mason City, and Omaha.

Rarely does a Congressional challenger introduce himself on television before an entrenched incumbent goes up on the air. But then, it’s rare for a first-time candidate like Mowrer to build up a good cash on hand advantage going into the general election.

Any comments about this race are welcome in this thread. As of August 1, the 39 counties in IA-04 contained 123,290 active registered Democrats, 179,745 Republicans, and 171,235 no-party voters.

P.S.- In a rant about “phony Sunday talk shows,” the Washington Post’s in-house conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin chastised news hosts who solicit King as a guest: “The real journalistic sin here is that no one has the nerve to explain that [King] is an outcast and reviled in his own caucus.” U.S. Senator and likely presidential candidate Rand Paul didn’t want to be near King during his conversation with the DREAMers. Later, Paul said he had to step away for a media availability. His body language suggested an urgent need to get away.

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner doesn’t want to impeach President Barack Obama. His plan to sue the president is a gambit to appease Republicans bent on fighting the president’s alleged failure “to faithfully execute the laws.” At this week’s meeting of the House GOP caucus, both Boehner and Greg Walden, head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, urged colleagues not to talk about impeachment, saying such talk only helps Democrats. Today, Boehner assured a roomful of reporters, “We have no plans to impeach the president,” claiming that such speculation was “all a scam started by Democrats at the White House.”

There’s no question Democrats have been hyping the impeachment speculation, to remarkably successful effect. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took in $2 million over four days from e-mail appeals warning of Republican plans to oust the president.

But it’s a stretch for Boehner to claim Democrats dreamed up the impeachment “scam.” Dave Weigel posted a good overview of Republicans inside and outside Congress calling for impeachment within the past year, and especially within the past month.

Just a few days ago, Iowa’s own Representative Steve King predicted House Republicans will be motivated to launch impeachment proceedings if President Obama uses executive orders to give “amnesty” to undocumented immigrants. After the jump I’ve posted excerpts from those comments, as well as King’s latest op-ed piece on immigration policy (which does not mention impeachment).  

To put it mildly, King and Boehner don’t always see eye to eye on political messaging. With House leadership strongly opposed, I’m skeptical Republicans aligned with King would be able to force a vote on articles of impeachment, let alone pass such a measure. Too many people remember how calls to impeach President Bill Clinton backfired during the 1998 midterm elections. But it’s worth noting that House Republicans proceeded with efforts to remove Clinton despite the verdict voters delivered in 1998. A recent national poll indicated that even as Obama’s approval ratings remain low, two-thirds of Americans oppose impeaching him. The same poll suggested that a majority of Republican respondents favor impeachment.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

P.S. – Great piece by Lynda Waddington on King saying, in effect, that Obama can’t feel true patriotism because “he was not raised with an American experience.”

UPDATE: Added new comments from King below. He isn’t currently pushing for impeachment but thinks the president might want to be impeached because of a narcissistic personality and “messiah complex.”

As new reports indicate that Iowa families are caring for more than 100 unaccompanied immigrant children who have entered the U.S. illegally during the past year, Governor Terry Branstad stands by his cold shoulder to the kids, while leading Iowa Democrats have called for a more welcoming stance.

I enclose below some recent news and commentary about how Iowans should react to the humanitarian crisis.

It’s been a while since Bleeding Heartland dedicated a thread to the potential 2016 presidential candidates. Please share any comments related to the next Iowa caucus campaign in this thread. Lots of links on various Democratic and Republican contenders are after the jump.

For two days I’ve been trying to find the words to react to Governor Terry Branstad slamming the door on unaccompanied and undocumented immigrant children who are staying in crowded facilities near the U.S. southern border. Since last fall, at least 50,000 children are estimated to have entered the country via Mexico from various countries of origin, mainly Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. The Obama administration has asked governors to help house the kids. During his Monday press briefing, Branstad made clear he doesn’t want any of the children sent to Iowa.

It’s not that I expected Branstad to welcome any of these kids. This is a guy who demagogued on illegal immigration during his last campaign and disagrees with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows undocumented children to be educated in public schools. Still, for those of us old enough to remember Governor Bob Ray welcoming refugees from Asia to Iowa during the 1970s, it’s dispiriting to hear Branstad trot out tired excuses and talking points. He wants “empathy for these kids” but doesn’t want to “send the signal to send these children to America illegally.” As if these children deliberately broke the law. As if families in desperate circumstances, trying to save their kids from murderous gangs in central America, would be influenced by “signals” from generous Iowans.

I have nothing profound to say, I just find it depressing to hear the governor cite some charitable work by his wife as an excuse not to do anything to alleviate a humanitarian crisis. After the jump I’ve posted some news clips on the story, along with a call to action from the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa. Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

P.S.- What a disgrace for WHO-TV to allow reporter Aaron Brilbeck to file a story referring to human beings as “illegals” in the headline and the lede. Where were the newsroom editors? I expect that kind of language in a press release from Representative Steve King’s office, not from a reputable media organization.

P.P.S.- Philip Brasher, formerly of the Des Moines Register, filed an excellent feature for Roll Call about “The Other Side of the Border.”

A detailed analysis by the Iowa Policy Project shows that immigrants contribute substantially “to Iowa’s economy both as workers and employers,” and could contribute more “if immigration reform were to make work authorization or a path to citizenship possible” for some undocumented Iowa residents. You can read the full report by Heather Gibney and Peter Fisher here (pdf). I’ve enclosed excerpts from the executive summary after the jump.

One key finding is that contrary to the image fostered by some politicians, undocumented immigrants are not a drain on state or federal budgets. They generate significant revenue for public assistance programs, from which they cannot benefit. Representative Steve King (R, IA-04) is notorious for his demagoguery against “illegals,” but sadly many other Iowa Republican elected officials, including Governor Terry Branstad, have promoted myths about undocumented immigrants taking state benefits.

I viewed U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s shocking primary loss as a sign that Representative Steve King (IA-04) could stop worrying about comprehensive immigration reform happening during this Congress. I figured, Republican leaders would not dare to move forward with a policy so unpopular with the GOP base. But since when has King ever listened to me? Speaking to Radio Iowa on June 14, he sounded very worried that an immigration reform bill could move “in September or October and then, of course, in a lame duck session it gets to be a very high risk.”

King’s concern is valid, because House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy quickly consolidated support to replace Cantor as majority leader. McCarthy is on record backing immigration reform principles that King views as “amnesty.” Jeb Hensarling of Texas, an immigration reform opponent like King, took himself out of the running for majority leader quickly. Pete Sessions, also of Texas, abandoned his effort in less than a day.

I still doubt House leaders will bring up the immigration reform bill that passed the U.S. Senate with bipartisan support in the summer of 2013. But if King is right that House Speaker John Boehner plans to give up that job soon, who knows? He may allow immigration reform to reach President Barack Obama’s desk as a a favor to business groups that support the policy and a parting shot to conservative critics. Boehner famously did not appreciate King’s headline-making comments about undocumented immigrants last year. The Senate bill would pass easily with a few dozen House Republicans joining most of the Democratic caucus.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

Representative Steve King (R, IA-04) has long been one of the leading voices in Congress against any immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. He even lost out on a subcommittee chairmanship because of his perceived hostility to immigrants, especially those who came to this country illegally. In early 2013, many pundits predicted King and his allies would not be able to stop a bill like the one that passed the U.S. Senate with bipartisan support, because of the Republican Party’s urgent need to improve its standing with Latino voters. But the anti-reform Republicans won promises from House leaders not to bring the Senate bill up for a vote on the House floor. (It would surely have passed with a few dozen Republicans joining most of the Democratic caucus.)

Every few months, pro-reform forces mount a new push to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and King mobilizes opposition. I think he can rest easy now that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor just lost his Republican primary to a little-known tea party challenger in Virginia’s seventh Congressional district. While immigration wasn’t the only issue brought up during the campaign, it was a salient issue in the primary.

[Challenger David] Brat ran hard against immigration reform, and the issue dominated conservative talk radio in recent days as the Obama administration’s request of funds to cope with an influx of recently detained young illegal immigrants from Central America.

Cantor sought to neutralize the issue, running hard negative television attacking Brat as a “liberal professor” and sending direct mail pieces saying he fought President Obama on “amnesty.”

Regardless of what Cantor said in campaign mailers, beltway insiders considered him a pro-immigration reform Republican.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

P.S. – During my childhood, there were several Jewish Republicans in Congress. Cantor was the last remaining after Senator Arlen Specter switched parties in 2009. Don’t hold your breath waiting for another one to be elected.

UPDATE: King commented on Twitter, “Earthshaking primary results in Virginia tonight. Resounding rejection of #Amnesty and support for Rule of Law. Personal regrets to Eric.”

SECOND UPDATE: King posted on June 11, “Wanted: Applicants for Majority Leader in US House who have a record opposing amnesty. Come see me.”

THIRD UPDATE: Senator Tom Harkin believes Cantor was defeated because he “lost touch with his district.” He pointed out that Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina survived his GOP primary this week, despite openly supporting immigration reform. But Graham had six opponents splintering the protest votes, not one challenger making a coherent case against him.

On behalf of Secretary of State Matt Schultz, the Iowa Attorney General’s office has asked the Iowa Supreme Court to review last month’s District Court decision invalidating a proposed rule that has been one of Schultz’s priorities. As Bleeding Heartland discussed here, the rule would allow the Secretary of State’s Office to check Iowa voters’ citizenship status against a federal database. Registered voters suspected of not being citizens would be informed by mail. Those who cannot prove their citizenship or do not respond within 60 days would be removed from the voter rolls.

Polk County District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg determined that Schultz overstepped his authority when he promulgated the rule. His decision in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa and the Iowa League of United Latin American Citizens did not address a separate legal question: whether Schultz’s rule violated the right to vote.

If the Iowa Supreme Court overturns last month’s decision, that would mean only that the Secretary of State had the authority to establish the new rule in the absence of legislative action. Further litigation would determine whether the procedure Schultz envisioned could intimidate eligible voters or deprive them of their rights.

I expect the Iowa Supreme Court to uphold the District Court ruling. Regardless, the appeal may boost Schultz’s standing with Republican primary voters in the third Congressional district. They will love this part of yesterday’s press release from the Secretary of State’s Office:

“I have fought for integrity and voter’s rights.  We can’t allow non-citizens to cancel out the vote of Iowans, but at the same time, anyone accused deserves due process.  My rule gives voters more due process and protects the integrity of the vote,” Schultz said.

Any relevant thoughts are welcome in this thread. Schultz’s use of the phrase “due process” suggests to me a fundamental misunderstanding of his role. The Secretary of State is an administrator, not a law enforcement official.  

Polk County District Court Judge Scott Rosenberg ruled yesterday that Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz overstepped his authority when he promulgated a rule designed to identify and remove suspected non-citizens from Iowa voter rolls. Schultz first tried to enact a similar rule using “emergency” procedures during the summer of 2012, but a different Polk County judge issued a temporary injunction preventing the rule from taking effect before the 2012 general election.

Schultz then proposed a different version of the rule (full text here) and enacted it using the normal rulemaking process. Several advocacy groups claimed the rules could intimidate and/or disenfranchise legitimate Iowa voters. The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa and the Iowa League of United Latin American Citizens restarted their voter suppression lawsuit last March. In September, District Court Judge Rosenberg rejected Schultz’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and in November, Rosenberg issued a temporary injunction preventing Schultz from implementing the rule before the court considered the merits of the case.

Yesterday Rosenberg found in favor of the plaintiffs, saying Schultz “lacked the statutory authority” to promulgate a rule allowing his office to use a federal database to check Iowa voters’ citizenship status. He further found that there was no rational basis for concluding that the rule was within the delegated authority of the Iowa Secretary of State’s office and ordered the respondent to pay legal costs. Schultz plans to appeal the ruling, which you can read in full at the Des Moines Register’s website. I doubt the Iowa Supreme Court will overturn this ruling, because the excerpts I’ve posted below are convincing.

Side note: I suspect that Schultz expected this verdict, and the likely failure of this crusade was one among several factors that prompted him to bail out of his current position in order to run for Congress in the open third district.

UPDATE: Added some comments from the ACLU of Iowa below. It’s worth noting that this ruling focused on the matter of Schultz’s authority and did not settle the question of whether his procedure would have wrongfully intimidated eligible voters or deprived them of their voting rights.

I thought Representative Steve King’s faction of the House Republican caucus had decisively won the war against comprehensive immigration reform in this Congress. But House leaders are trying to nudge Republicans toward moving on the issue before the midterm elections.

Just like last year, King is ready to stand and fight. In recent days, he’s been working conservative public opinion on several fronts.  

Via Bret Hayworth’s blog at the Sioux City Journal, I see that Representative Steve King (R, IA-04) took offense at a report that House Speaker John Boehner used an unprintable word to refer to him. The incident allegedly happened at the height of last summer’s furor over King’s views on the children of undocumented immigrants. Hayworth writes that King responded to the report with a statement:

“There can be honest disagreements about policy without using hateful language. Everyone needs to remember that,” King said. “I want to be clear. There’s no place in this debate for hateful or ignorant comments from elected officials. What he said does not reflect the values of the American people or the Republican Party, and we all need to do our work in a constructive, open and respectful way.”

You read that right: Steve King sees “no place in this debate for hateful or ignorant comments from elected officials.”

This from the guy who made “cantaloupe calves” a national symbol of the GOP’s hostility to undocumented immigrants.

This from the guy who created a visual aid re-naming the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) “Socialized Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents.”

For the record, I don’t care what Boehner called King in an angry moment. I do care that King’s faction of the House GOP caucus seems to have successfully blocked comprehensive immigration reform during this Congress. President Barack Obama thinks an immigration bill will pass this year, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

UPDATE: King’s statement may have been crafted for humorous effect, as his phrasing mirrored Boehner’s comments about King last summer. But get real: calling someone an expletive is not as “hateful” and “offensive” as saying DREAMers are 100 times more likely to be drug mules than valedictorians.

Here’s your mid-week open thread, Bleeding Heartland readers. All topics welcome.

I hope no one had a worse day than New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. E-mails and text messages emerged showing that the governor’s staff “had advance knowledge of the traffic nightmare at the George Washington Bridge that crippled Fort Lee in September. And his top officials at the Port Authority did indeed close the lanes as a form of retribution against the town’s mayor.” The lane closures caused delays for school buses and first responders as well as for thousands of commuters. The e-mails directly implicate Christie’s deputy chief of staff, Bridget Anne Kelly. It looks like she’s about to be thrown under the proverbial bus, along with Port Authority official David Wildstein, a Christie appointee. The governor said in a statement today that he did not know about his staffer’s involvement and warned that “people will be held responsible for their actions.”

Christie needs this story to go away fast and be old news by the time he runs for president in 2016. I was amused to read recently that the New Jersey Republican State Committee sent Christmas cards on Christie’s behalf to Iowa GOP lawmakers, including State Representatives Bobby Kaufmann and Jake Highfill.

My favorite reaction to the latest news about the New Jersey governor came from Iowa conservative talk radio host Steve Deace: “Hilarious to see liberal media tearing part Chris Christie, who is Hillary’s best shot to win in 2016. Knock yourselves out!” Contrary to Deace’s fantasy world, where Republicans can win nationwide elections by moving to the right, polls taken in Iowa and many other states suggest that Christie would be the most competitive potential Republican candidate against Clinton. I still think he would lose.

UPDATE: I had no idea that newly elected Major League Baseball Hall of Famer Greg Maddux pitched for the Iowa Cubs in 1986 and 1987.

SECOND UPDATE: I should have mentioned that to his credit, Christie held an event this week to celebrate the New Jersey “DREAM Act” bill he signed in December. The new law allows children of undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition at New Jersey colleges and universities. Needless to say, this decision won’t help Christie in any future Iowa caucus campaign.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.

I didn’t post a year-end summary of Iowa politics news from 2013, but two big stories are obvious bookends: Senator Tom Harkin’s decision in January not to seek re-election, and Representative Tom Latham following suit in December. Other important developments ranged from the surprising (a highly productive legislative session despite divided control) to the expected (Representative Steve King making national news with offensive remarks).

The Sioux City Journal compiled King’s highlight reel for 2013. “Cantaloupe calves” seems destined to become a lasting catch phrase, and may stir nightmares for Republican strategists hoping to make inroads with Latino voters. But King can feel successful in that immigration reform now appears less likely to pass than it did early last year.

From the day I first saw Iowa’s new map of political boundaries in 2011, I had a bad feeling that Republican Tom Latham would be representing me in Congress for most of this decade. I did not see today’s news coming: in an e-mail to supporters this afternoon (full text here), the ten-term incumbent announced that he will not seek re-election to the U.S. House in 2014. Latham plans to spend more time with his family.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee was already targeting Iowa’s third Congressional district, and Latham was in the National Republican Congressional Committee’s incumbent protection program. As an open seat, the race will be far more competitive than if longtime incumbent Latham were on the ballot. I am curious to see which Republicans jump in this race. I doubt Des Moines-based teacher and business owner Joe Grandanette, who had already announced a primary challenge to Latham, will be the GOP nominee. I assume several state legislators or former legislators will go for it, but probably not State Senator Brad Zaun, who couldn’t beat Leonard Boswell in the biggest Republican landslide in decades.

Former State Senator Staci Appel has a head start in the race for the Democratic nomination, with nearly $200,000 cash on hand as of September 30 and the support of several Democratic-aligned interest groups, including EMILY’s List. Gabriel De La Cerda is the other declared Democratic candidate in IA-03. With Latham retiring, I wonder if other Democrats will jump in the race. For instance, State Senator Matt McCoy was planning to run for Congress in the third district in 2002 before Representative Boswell decided to move to Des Moines so as not to face Steve King in what was then IA-05.

As of December 1, IA-03 contained 157,456 active registered Democrats, 164,311 Republicans, and 160,205 no-party voters, according to the Iowa Secretary of State’s office.

UPDATE: Shortly after news broke of Latham’s retirement, Appel sent out a fundraising appeal and tweeted that her team was “thrilled to see our work holding Latham accountable has paid off.”

SECOND UPDATE: State Senator Janet Petersen comes to mind as a potential Democratic candidate as well. On the Republican side, I wonder whether some mayors or Waukee City Council Member Isaiah McGee will go for it.

THIRD UPDATE: Lieutenant Governor Kim Reynolds already ruled out running for Congress, but Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz is seriously considering it.

I’ve added Appel’s statement on today’s news after the jump.

FOURTH UPDATE: Added Schultz’s statement after the jump. He served as a Council Bluffs City Council member before running for Iowa secretary of state.

Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal lives in IA-03 and could run for Congress without risking his state Senate seat, since he’s not up for re-election until 2016.

Also added statements from Representatives Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack, and the Iowa Democratic Party below. Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement Action released a statement calling on Latham to help move immigration reform forward, now that he “has nothing to lose.”

Have to agree with John Deeth: “On the GOP side I expect a clown car and maybe even another convention.” State Senators Brad Zaun and Jack Whitver are both thinking about it.

FIFTH UPDATE: Added statement from Gabriel De La Cerda, who was the first Democrat to declare in IA-03 earlier this year.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush told a New York audience on Monday

that his party needed to abandon a strategy of appealing to “older white guys” and that it “doesn’t take a rocket scientist” to understand that demography matters in politics. […]

Republicans can’t win new voters “by narrowing your party and purifying your party and all this nonsense,” he said.

And he blasted some of the rhetoric from congressional Republicans against immigration, such as Iowa Rep. Steve King as “shameful and so insulting … [it’s] totally out of the mainstream of conservative thought.”

Iowa blogger Shane Vander Hart fumes,

If [Bush] is running in 2016 then he’s running a clinic on how to guarantee one loses the Iowa Caucus.

First lesson if you want to lose attack Congressman Steve King (R-IA).  […] The grassroots identify with Congressman King and his position on the issues. So when Bush takes a crack at him in New York of all places… well that shows he lacks the sense to run a successful campaign in Iowa.

I doubt Jeb Bush is focused on winning the Iowa caucuses. I think he’s focused on the GOP not losing presidential elections until the end of time.

Winning the presidency is not about pandering to social conservatives in Iowa. Republicans can’t win just by improving their performance among white voters. They need more support from fast-growing demographic groups. Specifically, as Bush knows very well, they need to do better among Latino voters in Florida. King may have won the battle against comprehensive immigration reform, but his national prominence on this issue is a nightmare for Republican strategists.  

The writing was on the wall this summer, but U.S. House Speaker John Boehner made it official yesterday: the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will not take up the bipartisan Senate-passed immigration reform bill, nor will the House ever go to conference committee negotiations on that bill.

It’s a triumph for Representative Steve King (IA-04), who has made it his mission to stop any effort to grant legal status or citizenship to undocumented immigrants.

Polk County Republican Party co-chair Chad Brown has resigned his office and switched his voter registration to no-party, Kathie Obradovich reported for the Des Moines Register today. Click through to read his resignation letter to the Polk GOP Executive Committee, which is as damning as any focus group comments or “autopsy” I’ve seen. Brown pointed out that Republicans have lost ground in Polk County, not just in the city of Des Moines but even in the suburbs. He has concluded that “we are now headed in the wrong direction on several fronts” and that he would only be “enabling” to help “a dysfunctional Party that does not want to address its problems.”

In his resignation letter, Brown wrote that he finds it “increasingly difficult to defend issues and statements made by Party leaders and officials” at the national, state, and local levels. Speaking to Obradovich by phone, Brown cited Representative Steve King’s recent comments about undocumented immigrants, guns, and what he characterized as “war on science and common sense” with respect to climate change.

UPDATE: The Sunday Des Moines Register published a guest column by Brown on August 25. Excerpts are after the jump. He plans to switch his party registration to Democrat.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? This is an open thread.

Representative Steve King’s views about a path to legal residence for undocumented immigrants continue to make national news. Follow me after the jump for more comments and recent reports.

Representative Steve King’s assertion that there are 100 drug mules for every “DREAMer” who’s a valedictorian continues to reverberate across the country. National television networks and blogs have chewed over the story, and many politicians have condemned King’s statement, including House Speaker John Boehner.

King stands by his comments and claims that the intense criticism proves he has “won the debate” over immigration policy. Yet a new poll of residents in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district suggests that King is out of step even with his own constituents.

Follow me after the jump for details on that poll and a roundup of reaction to King’s words about undocumented immigrants who entered the country as children.

 Representative Steve King (R – IA4) is no stranger to nationwide controversy over his comments towards immigration.  Having compared immigrants as unwanted dogs sleeping in the corner, he has emerged as the far right’s spokesperson for immigration reform talks in Congress.

It’s never too early to talk about the next Iowa caucuses. Here are a few news items to get the conversation started: Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the last GOP vice presidential nominee and chair of the House Budget Committee, will headline Governor Terry Branstad’s birthday event in Altoona this November.

Representative Peter King of New York, the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, is thinking about running for president and specifically criticized two other likely candidates: Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. It sounds as if King doesn’t expect to win the nomination, but wants to “get my views out on national defense and foreign policy” and prevent people like Paul from being “the face of the national Republican Party.”

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is my ridiculously early pick to win the 2016 caucuses, but I think Paul Ryan could do well here too. I don’t see Peter King having strong appeal with Iowa Republicans.

I tend to agree with Josh Marshall that we are seeing “the end of Marco Rubio” as a presidential contender. Immigration reform is probably going nowhere, and Rubio bet a lot on that horse. Conservative talk radio host Steve Deace is wrong about most things, but probably not wrong about Rubio’s “Iowa problem.” The young senator would be better off running for re-election in Florida in 2016 and putting off any presidential ambitions for at least another four or eight years.

The latest Public Policy Polling survey of Iowa Republicans showed no clear front-runner.

One of Representative Steve King’s top priorities this year is blocking comprehensive immigration reform in the U.S. House. A few months ago, King was concerned that House GOP leaders might cut a deal including “amnesty” for  approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants. He condemned the immigration reform bill U.S. senators approved last month with bipartisan support.

News out of Washington during the last week suggests that King’s faction may be on the way to winning their battle to block any legislation outlining a path to citizenship.  

Using an unusual voting procedure reserved for very important legislation, the U.S. Senate approved a comprehensive immigration reform bill yesterday by 68 votes to 32 (roll call). Every senator who caucuses with Democrats voted yes, joined by fourteen Republicans. The rest of the GOP caucus, including the entire leadership team and Senator Chuck Grassley, voted no.

In the run-up to the vote on final passage, senators considered many amendments to the immigration reform conceived by the bipartisan “Gang of Eight.” After the jump I cover how Grassley and Senator Tom Harkin voted on the significant amendments, as well as reaction to the bill’s passage from both senators and other Iowa politicians. Representative Steve King (R, IA-04) has vowed to block any comparable legislation from passing the U.S. House. He opposes any path to legal status or citizenship, even for undocumented immigrants brought to this country as young children.

Senator Chuck Grassley’s former chief of staff David Young and former U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker have both officially entered the U.S. Senate race. Highlights from the candidates’ announcements and recent interviews are after the jump.

Any comments about the IA-Sen campaign are welcome in this thread.

Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen is thinking seriously about running for Congress in the open first district, covering 20 counties in northeast and central Iowa. He hasn’t given a timeline for making up his mind and has said he’s trying to figure out “what’s the best way to serve Iowans. What meets their needs?”

I would suggest that Paulsen consider this cold, hard reality: he is unlikely to serve Iowans as a member of Congress, because he would lose the GOP primary in IA-01.

UPDATE: Scroll to the end of this post for a sixth reason.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? Rand Paul was in Cedar Rapids on Friday to headline the Republican Party of Iowa’s spring fundraiser. Links and highlights are after the jump. Nothing I read convinced me that Paul has any chance of becoming president someday, but count on him to try.

Speaking of Rand, did you know that he was never board-certified? I learned that recently from an ophthalmologist and eye surgeon. After I mentioned that Iowa Department of Public Health Director Mariannette Miller-Meeks is also an ophthalmologist, she looked up Miller-Meeks in the academy database and commented, “She’s well-trained.” Miller-Meeks did her residency at the University of Iowa and a fellowship at the University of Michigan. She is board-certified and was re-certified about ten years ago.

This is an open thread: all topics welcome. In previous years I’ve posted Mother’s Day links here, here, and here. Best wishes to those who celebrate today, and healing thoughts to those who grieve on Mother’s Day.

Representative Steve King announced on twitter Friday night, “I will not run for Senate in 2014. A Senate race takes me out of urgent battles in Congress that can’t wait until 2015. Many thanks to all.”

Those battles include immigration reform, where King is a leading voice House Republican voice against any path to legal residency or citizenship. He has also pledged to block the implementation of the 2010 health care reform law.

King’s decision should not surprise anyone. He could not win a statewide election for any office in Iowa. I believe that if his internal polling showed the “path to victory” he claimed to see, he would be in the Senate race already. In contrast, he is favored to hold the Republican-leaning fourth Congressional district for the next decade. His likely Democratic opponent Jim Mowrer will face a steep uphill battle.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread. The statement posted on King’s Congressional campaign website is after the jump.

President Barack Obama and four former presidents were in Dallas this morning for the dedication of George W. Bush’s presidential library and museum. Highlights from the speeches are here and here.

The Washington Post published this timeline of Bush’s eight years in office. Asawin Suebsaeng listed eight things you won’t find at Bush’s presidential library. Dylan Matthews summed up Bush’s presidency in 24 charts.

In my opinion Bush was one of the very worst presidents in U.S. history. I wish he had stayed out of politics, either by becoming a painter many years ago or being named Major League Baseball commissioner in the early 1990s. Although his approval rating is higher now than it’s been in years, I don’t believe future historians will look favorably on him. His administration had “the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records.” We’ll be paying for his unaffordable tax cuts and the ongoing costs of the war in Iraq for decades to come.

But in an effort to say at least one positive thing to mark today’s event, I will give Bush credit for supporting the DREAM Act in Texas and at the federal level. Share your own thoughts about “43” in this thread.

UPDATE: George W. Bush and his mother disagree on whether former Florida Governor Jeb Bush should run for president.

This week a “gang of eight” U.S. senators (four from each party) released an immigration reform bill. Jordan Fabian of ABC News published a good overview of the proposal, while Ted Hesson explained how the bill addresses seven of the “most-asked” questions about immigration reform.

Representative Steve King has long opposed creating any path to legal residence or citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Among U.S. House Republicans, he has been the loudest voice pushing back against the “gang of eight.” In the process, King reminded everyone why the GOP establishment will be so relieved when he finally acknowledges that he’s not running for U.S. Senate next year.

UPDATE: Added an official statement from King below.