An e-mail appearing to come from the sender “Stop Steve King” popped up in my in-box this week. I opened it, wondering whether a Democratic candidate was ready to announce already in Iowa’s fourth Congressional district. King’s last challenger, Jim Mowrer, raised a huge amount of money in 2013 and last year, partly through mass e-mails coming from “Stop Steve King” or “Stop Steve King 2014.” Getting voters to read messages from political campaigns is increasingly challenging, and “clickbait” subject headings don’t always do the trick. Of all Iowa Republicans, King is probably the most hated by Democrats.    

As it turned out, the February 24 “Stop Steve King” message wasn’t from a potential challenger in IA-04. New Blue Interactive sent it on behalf of Monica Vernon’s Congressional campaign in Iowa’s first district. The e-mail urged recipients to sign a petition demanding that Congress fund the U.S. Department of Homeland Security with a “clean” bill, not including “anti-immigration amendments.” Clicking through the embedded link takes you to a petition page titled, “Tell the Tea Party to stop playing games with our national security!” Vernon’s opponent, Representative Rod Blum, is mentioned as standing in lock-step with King, House Speaker John Boehner, and “tea party” Republicans. I’ve enclosed screenshots of the mass e-mail and the petition after the jump.

Within the House GOP caucus, King has been one of the loudest voices demanding that Congress use the Homeland Security funding measure to make a point on immigration policy. Blum has indicated that he also supports using the Homeland Security budget bill to withhold funding from programs related to the President Barack Obama’s executive orders granting temporary legal status to some undocumented immigrants. In Blum’s view, holding the line on this matter “will not impact national security” because even after current funding expires at the end of February, “85 percent of the federal employees funded through Homeland Security are deemed essential and will continue work without pay until the funding issue is resolved.”

So it seems fair for Vernon’s campaign to lump Blum in with King and other Republicans engaging in brinksmanship over Homeland Security funding. Clearly “Stop Steve King” will catch the eye of many more Democrats than “Stop Rod Blum” or “Vernon for Congress.” Whether this exercise in list-building will eventually translate into lots of new donors or volunteers for Vernon is anyone’s guess.

Any comments about the race in IA-01 are welcome in this thread.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush made a strong statement on Friday when his political action committee announced $122,800 in donations to Republican parties and candidates in early presidential nominating states. The Right to Rise PAC gave $10,000 to the Republican Party of Iowa and $5,200 each to U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley and Representative David Young (IA-03).

The money Bush gave (and didn’t give) in Iowa speaks volumes.

Iowa politics watchers are still talking about the latest statewide poll by Selzer & Co for the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics. Bleeding Heartland discussed the topline Iowa caucus numbers here. Harry Enten took issue with various “Scott Walker leads” headlines, writing at FiveThirtyEight that the Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll indicates “chaos” rather than the Wisconsin governor leading the Republican field. Pat Rynard’s take on the implications for Democratic and Republican presidential contenders is at Iowa Starting Line.

Anyone who is vaguely familiar with Iowa Republican discourse shouldn’t be surprised that Jeb Bush’s stands on immigration reform and “Common Core” education standards are a “deal-killer” for many conservatives polled by Selzer. As for why New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has the highest negatives (with 54 percent of GOP respondents viewing him unfavorably), there are many potential explanations. It’s only been a year since the scandal involving politically-motivated bridge lane closures made national news. Before that, he angered social conservatives by signing a bill that bans “gay conversion therapy” and by not fighting a court ruling that overturned New Jersey’s ban on same-sex marriage. Who knows, maybe some Iowa Republicans are still mad that Christie praised President Barack Obama’s handling of Hurricane Sandy right before the 2012 presidential election.

The Des Moines Register has rolled out other findings from the latest Iowa poll this week. Sad to say, I’m surprised that only 39 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers agreed with the statement “Islam is an inherently violent religion, which leads its followers to violent acts.” I would have expected more to agree with that statement and fewer than 53 percent of GOP respondents to lean toward “Islam is an inherently peaceful religion, but there are some who twist its teachings to justify violence.” Among likely Democratic caucus-goers in the sample, only 13 percent said Islam is inherently violent, while 81 percent said the faith is inherently peaceful.

Not surprisingly, Selzer’s poll found a big partisan divide in whether Iowans see U.S. Senator Joni Ernst as a potential president. I wish the question wording had been more clear. To me, “Do you think Joni Ernst does or does not have what it takes to become president one day?” is ambiguous. Were they trying to get at whether respondents think Ernst could do the job, or whether she could be elected? I don’t think Ernst has “what it takes” to be a good legislator, but obviously she had “what it takes” to win the Senate election. The results would be easier to interpret if respondents had been asked something like, “Would you ever consider voting for Joni Ernst for president someday?” or “Regardless of whether you might personally support her, do you think Joni Ernst could be elected president someday?”

No Des Moines Register story by Jennifer Jacobs about Ernst would be complete without some pro-Ernst slant, and in this case I had to laugh reading the pulled quotes from poll respondents. The ones who had good things to say about Ernst sounded reasonable and well spoken, whereas the one Democrat Jacobs quoted criticizing Ernst was made to look petty: “She kind of represents everything that makes me want to throw up in the morning – and I’m not even pregnant.”

Bleeding Heartland doesn’t usually comment on polls from other states, but Quinnipiac’s latest findings from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida will interest any political junkie. In head to head match-ups, Hillary Clinton leads by double digits against every Republican tested in Pennsylvania. She “dominates” all of them in Ohio, except for Governor John Kasich, who trails her by a statistically insignificant 1 percent. She also has a comfortable lead in Florida against all of the Republicans except former Governor Jeb Bush, who trails by 1 percent. Yes, it’s “too early” for a 2016 general election poll; in 1999 many polls found George W. Bush way ahead of Vice President Al Gore. Yes, name recognition may be contributing to Clinton’s leads. Nevertheless, if the Q-poll is anywhere in the ballpark, the Republican nominee will go into the next presidential election as the underdog. Thanks to the “Big Blue Wall,” Clinton could get to 270 electoral votes with the states John Kerry won in 2004 plus Florida, or the states Kerry won plus Ohio and one or two other smaller states (such as Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, or Iowa).

Republicans may take heart in the fact that some of their likely presidential contenders (such as Walker) were not included in Quinnipiac’s swing-state polls.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers? Many prospective presidential candidates are speaking at the Iowa Freedom Summit today. I’ll update this post later with clips and highlights.

An MSNBC story on Representative Steve King (IA-04) made a splash yesterday with this revelation:

King is not above gloating. His staff kept a running list of some 12-16 prominent Republicans who’ve leveled personal criticisms against him. The congressman said he went over it himself the other day, just for old time’s sake.

“Their agenda [on immigration] has been marginalized,” a smiling King told msnbc. “Mine’s been strengthened.”

True, but that’s to the long-term detriment of the country and the Republican Party.

Who do you think is on King’s enemies list? Probably not many Iowans, aside from Doug Gross.

President Barack Obama will deliver his State of the Union address later this evening to a joint session of Congress. Newly-elected Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa will deliver the Republican response afterwards. It’s her chance to make a first impression on many politically-minded Americans who live outside Iowa, and lots of people were reportedly searching for information about her today. This thread is for any comments related to either Obama’s or Ernst’s speech. I’ll update this post later with highlights and Iowa reaction.

Representative Steve King got bent out of shape by the news that a “DREAMer” (undocumented immigrant who was brought to this country as a child) will sit with First Lady Michelle Obama tonight.

#Obama perverts “prosecutorial discretion” by inviting a deportable to sit in place of honor at #SOTU w/1st Lady. I should sit with Alito.

It’s bad enough that King frequently refers to undocumented immigrants as “illegals.” A person should not be labeled a “deportable.” Anyway, under the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, Ana Zamora is not “deportable.”

UPDATE: Bleeding Heartland has a longstanding policy of not commenting on women politicians’ attire, but Ernst’s camouflage pumps compel me to break that rule. Ernst knows her audience, and whoever designed those shoes is going to make a fortune.

SECOND UPDATE: Iowa reaction to the president’s speech is after the jump. Ernst’s comments were a barely-revised version of her stump speech from last year’s Senate campaign. Radio Iowa mentioned some highlights, including Ernst advocating for the Keystone XL pipeline. Cristina Marcos of The Hill focused on the “folksy” aspects of Ernst’s performance, including her anecdotes about working at Hardee’s as a teenager and wearing bread bags over her only pair of shoes. On social media I’ve seen lots of Iowans debating how common it used to be for children to wear bread bags over their shoes to prevent water damage. I don’t remember seeing it when I was growing up, but I was a “city girl.”

Pat Rynard sees Ernst as a likely GOP vice presidential nominee in 2016. I think that’s out of the question, because she is way too inexperienced, and the Sarah Palin experiment didn’t work out well for Republicans. Ernst can’t be the VP nominee in 2020 either, because she would have to choose between that and running for re-election to the U.S. Senate. Maybe in 2024 if Iowans re-elect her in 2020. Anyway, at the end of this post I enclosed excerpts from Rynard’s case for Ernst as a VP candidate.

The most memorable line from the president’s speech was reportedly ad-libbed.

THIRD UPDATE: Des Moines-based RAYGUN shirts is already out with a new design that reads, “IOWA! YOU SAY BREAD AISLE, WE SAY SHOE STORE.” I think mocking the anecdote is a mistake for Democrats; doing so only plays into Republican narratives about liberal elitism. Iowa Rabbi David Kaufman is right: “Anyone who cares for the poor” and “wouldn’t walk up to a homeless person and insult their clothing” should not be making fun of Ernst over her bread bag anecdote. That said, it’s fair game to point out that Ernst opposes many policies (such as Medicaid expansion or a minimum wage increase) which would help the working poor and their children.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to delay or roll back various portions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law. Almost the entire Republican caucus, including Iowans Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04), supported the bill, which passed by 271 votes to 154 (roll call). Democratic Representative Dave Loebsack (IA-02) missed the votes in order to attend President Barack Obama’s visit to Cedar Falls. Last week he voted for the Dodd-Frank measure when it was brought to the House floor under a suspension of the rules, so we can assume he would have joined the 29 House Democrats who backed it this week.

Also on January 14, the House approved by 236 votes to 191 a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through the 2015 fiscal year, which ends on September 30. During the floor debate, Republicans passed “a series of contentious amendments that take aim at facets of Obama’s immigration policy,” Rebecca Shabad and Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill. Seven Republicans defected on an amendment that would “choke off funding for Obama’s executive action announced in November. Then 26 Republicans voted against an amendment to withhold funding for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, under which some undocumented immigrants are temporarily shielded from deportation. Blum, Young, and King voted with the GOP majority in support of both controversial amendments before supporting the final DHS funding bill. (Based on his past voting record, Loebsack surely would have stood with most House Democrats, who opposed the immigration language in the DHS funding bill.)

I have not seen any lengthy comment from Rod Blum, just this tweet: “Proud to vote to fully fund the DHS today while stopping the President’s unconstitutional executive actions on immigration.” Press releases from Young and King are after the jump. In a video statement, King hailed the DHS funding bill and said it included provisions he has proposed.

Speaking of King, he introduced two constitutional bills this week. His “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015” would repeal automatic citizenship for babies born in the United States to parents who are not legal residents. That’s been a longtime goal of King’s, but to date Republican Congressional leaders have not shown any interest in moving forward. In fact, King’s previous comments on repealing birthright citizenship are one reason he wasn’t picked to chair the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration after Republicans took control of the lower chamber in the 2010 elections.

King’s other proposal would repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which authorizes the federal income tax. He has long been a vocal supporter of the so-called “Fair Tax,” which would replace federal income taxes with a value-added tax on most goods and services. It’s a monumentally bad idea.

In what might be described as a Christmas miracle, a Democrat has stepped up to run in the January 6 special election to represent Iowa House district 4. The vacancy arose when State Representative Dwayne Alons passed away last month.

John Buntsma is the first Democrat since 2008 to contest the Iowa House district covering most of Sioux County (scroll down for a detailed map). Of the 100 Iowa House districts, this is the most Republican, with only 1,498 active registered Democrats, 13,279 Republicans, and 3,555 no-party voters according to the latest figures from the Iowa Secretary of State’s office. GOP presidential candidates routinely top 80 percent in Sioux County, and Governor Terry Branstad got about 91 percent of the votes there this year. In a statement I’ve enclosed below, Buntsma said he is running because “It is important for all of us to have choices. I felt that the voters should have more than one choice.” Good for him. I would love to see Democratic candidates compete in every Iowa House and Senate district, no matter how hopeless the race may appear.

I haven’t seen any detailed background on John Kooiker, the “military veteran, family farmer and retired postal service worker” who won a Republican nominating convention in House district 4. A short press release noted that Kooiker “heavily emphasized his social conservative beliefs,” which helped him secure the GOP nomination on the third ballot. That probably makes him a pretty good fit for the district. Alons was one of the most outspoken social conservatives in the Iowa House Republican caucus.

After the jump I’ve enclosed two press releases containing background on Buntsma. Note the difference between the version circulated by the candidate himself and the shorter release from the Iowa Democratic Party. I’ve often heard Democratic candidates complain that party types warn them against speaking their minds on potentially controversial issues. In a race like this, what difference could it make to downplay Buntsma’s beliefs on immigration, the minimum wage, or the exemption casinos received from Iowa’s public smoking ban?

Who’s up for a new thread on possible presidential candidates? The big news on the Republican side today was former Florida Governor Jeb Bush announcing that he will “actively explore” a presidential bid. Bush is forming a leadership PAC to raise huge piles of money “help me facilitate conversations with citizens across America to discuss the most critical challenges facing our exceptional nation.”

I can’t see Bush winning the GOP nomination, given his past support for immigration reform including a path to citizenship. Among Iowa conservatives, his support for “Common Core” educational standards will be a deal-breaker too. On the other hand, Bush poses an immediate threat to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. The two would be competing for many of the same donors and Republican moderate voters.

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio’s staff says Bush’s decision won’t influence Rubio’s plans for 2016. I am 100 percent convinced that Florida’s junior senator will run for re-election. He has pretty good odds of winning a second term but would be a long-shot to win the presidential nomination.

On the Democratic side, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (technically an independent) was in central Iowa today. I’ve posted excerpts from news coverage after the jump. It’s Sanders’ fourth Iowa visit this year, but he told a supportive Ames crowd he hasn’t decided whether to run for president.

Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren continues to repeat that she is not running for president in 2016. But MoveOn.Org’s “Run Warren Run” project is organizing an event at Java Joe’s coffee house in downtown Des Moines. Some central Iowa Democrats received phone calls from MoveOn today inviting them to the pro-Warren event, which is set for 5:30 pm on Wednesday, December 17.

I still think the draft Warren effort is a waste of time and energy. Apparently, so does progressive hero Al Franken. Minnesota’s junior U.S. senator is “ready for Hillary” Clinton:

“I mean, I think that we’ve not had someone this experienced, this tough, and she’s very, very impressive. People have asked me about Elizabeth Warren. She is great, but she’s not running. She says she’s not running. So I don’t-I think Hillary would be great.”

Any comments about the next presidential campaign are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: Democracy for America announced on December 17 that it will invest $250,000 in the Draft Warren effort. I’ve added the group’s press release at the end of this post. Run Warren Run ran a full-page ad in the Des Moines Register on December 17, featuring hundreds of Iowans who are urging the Massachusetts senator to run for president.

Iowa Senate President Pam Jochum attended the “Run Warren Run” event in Des Moines and called Warren “brilliant” and “courageous.” But Jochum is not endorsing Warren over Hillary Clinton and hopes the Democratic field will include both women, as well as Vice President Joe Biden and others.

Senator Tom Harkin cast his last votes in Congress over the weekend. After the jump I’ve posted the video and full transcript of Harkin’s final speech on the U.S. Senate floor, delivered on December 12. He and Iowa’s senior Senator Chuck Grassley were at odds in many roll-call votes these past two days. However, they both voted against the $1.1 trillion government funding bill senators passed late Saturday night. The 56 to 40 roll call reveals an unusual bipartisan split. Yes votes came from 32 Democrats and 24 Republicans, while 21 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted no. Liberals like Harkin found plenty to dislike in the so-called “cromnibus” spending bill. Notably, it included a big change to the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which was literally written by one of the large banks that will benefit. The spending bill also includes a “big coal giveaway”, big cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency budget, and several other bad environmental provisions. What Democrats supposedly got out of the “cromnibus” wasn’t worth it in my opinion.

Just before the final vote on the spending bill, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas raised a constitutional point of order:

“If you believe President Obama’s executive order was unconstitutional vote yes,” Cruz said ahead of the vote on Saturday. “If you think the president’s executive order is constitutional vote no.”

Only 22 senators voted with Cruz and 74 voted against his point of order.

The roll call shows that Grassley was one of the Republicans who voted for the point of order. The group included several senators who may run for president (Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rob Portman) and a bunch of Republicans who are up for re-election in 2016 and presumably want to avoid a GOP primary challenge.

Many of the Republicans who opposed Cruz’s motion (including the Senate GOP leadership team) probably were motivated by the desire to avoid a government shutdown. Nevertheless, they are now on record voting no when Cruz said such a vote signified a belief that “the president’s executive order is constitutional.”

Also on Saturday, senators approved on party lines a series of motions to advance judicial nominees. Here Harkin and Grassley were on opposite sides. In fact, disagreements over whether to vote on these nominations delayed a final vote on the spending bill. Harkin and other Democrats backed all the nominations. Grassley will chair the Senate Judiciary Committee when the new Congress convenes and has promised more vigorous oversight of nominations. He objected to moving the judicial nominations during the lame-duck session, even though many of the nominees were non-controversial and had been approved by a Judiciary Committee voice vote. In fact, Republican senators from Illinois and Texas had recommended some of these nominees for federal judgeships.

Last night the U.S. House approved a $1.1 trillion “cromnibus,” a massive continuing resolution to fund most of the federal government through September 2015. The 219 to 206 roll call showed an unusual bipartisan split, with 162 Republicans and 57 Democrats supporting the bill, while 67 Republicans and 139 Democrats voted against it. Many of the most outspoken House progressives and conservatives were against the cromnibus, for different reasons. Only one of Iowa’s four U.S. House members voted yes: retiring Republican Tom Latham (IA-03). I have not seen any official statement explaining his reasons.

Republican Steve King (IA-04) opposed the bill primarily because in his view, it did not do enough to block funding for President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration. I’ve posted some of King’s recent statements on the issue after the jump. King’s office has not responded to my request for comment on assertions by House Appropriations Committee staff that it would be “impossible” to defend the immigration order. King offered an amendment (full text here) which would have funded “all of the government until January 30 of next year but [would] prohibit any and all funds from being used to carry out the president’s lawless, unconstitutional executive amnesty in all its forms.” But an analysis by Scott Wong for The Hill suggests that the Obama administration would be able to carry out the executive order even if Congress shut down the federal government.

Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) both voted against the funding bill. I have not seen any official statement explaining those votes but will update this post as needed.

In the busy days before Thanksgiving, I missed this unintentional comedy from Governor Terry Branstad’s weekly press conference (hat tip to Todd Dorman):

“There’s also a constitutional question about whether the president of the United States has the authority to act unilaterally on issues like this [immigration policy],” Branstad said. “So I expect there’s going to be a lot of unanswered questions that I need to get information about and what the impact would have on our state.”

Asked if he would take executive action on state immigration policy, Branstad responded, “We don’t operate that way in Iowa.”

“That’s the difference between Washington, D.C., and Iowa,” Branstad said. “In Iowa, I’m very careful to recognize the separation of powers and to work with the Legislature.”

Where to begin?

About 15,000 undocumented immigrants living in Iowa will be eligible for deportation relief under President Barack Obama’s latest executive order on immigration, according to the Pew Research Center’s analysis. Iowa is home to an estimated 40,000 unauthorized immigrants (roughly 1.35 percent of the state’s population). Of those, Pew Center researchers estimate that about 5,000 people became eligible for deportation relief under Obama’s 2012 executive order regarding Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Another 15,000 Iowans could receive deportation relief under the policy the president announced last week. A much larger number of Iowans stand to benefit from having the threat of deportation temporarily lifted from friends or relatives who are undocumented immigrants.

Click here to view a table showing how many people could be affected by the new immigration policy in all 50 states and Washington, DC. Jens Manuel Krogstad, a writer and editor at the Pew Research Center’s Hispanic Trends Project, and Jeffrey S. Passel, senior demographer at the Pew Research Center’s Hispanic Trends Project, collaborated on the new analysis.

Since last week, I’ve been wondering how unauthorized immigrants could find out whether the new executive order applies to them, without running the risk of deportation in case the answer is no. Madeline Cano, a community organizer with Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, told me that the application process for deportation relief will begin in May 2015. She said the Administrative Relief Resource Center is “the most reliable resource” on the subject. Using information from that website, Iowa CCI and other advocacy groups created documents in English and Spanish that cover the basics on Obama’s executive action. I’ve enclosed those documents after the jump.

Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.

UPDATE: At the end of this post I added excerpts from this Des Moines Register op-ed by Joe Henry, state director of the League of United Latin American Citizens of Iowa.  

President Barack Obama delivered a prime-time televised address last night to explain his new executive order on immigration. The order would remove the threat of deportation for an estimated 5 million of the 11 million immigrants who came to this country illegally. After the jump I’ve posted the full text of the president’s speech, as well as reaction from some members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation and several advocacy groups. I will update this post as needed.

Last year, Iowa’s U.S. senators split when the Senate approved a comprehensive immigration reform bill, which has never come up for a vote in the U.S. House. Just before Congress adjourned for five weeks this summer, Iowa’s representatives in the House split on party lines over a border security funding bill bill designed to speed up deportations of unaccompanied children entering this country. Likewise, Tom Latham (IA-03) and Steve King (IA-04) voted for and Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) against a separate bill that would have reversed the president’s policy (announced two years ago) to suspend deportations of some undocumented immigrants who were brought to this country as children. Click here for background on those bills.

Note: King has been all over the national media the last couple of weeks, as journalists and pundits have discussed the president’s expected action on immigration. Over the summer, King raised the prospect that Obama could be impeached over unilateral action on immigration. But as you can see from statements posted below, more recently he has not advocated impeachment. Instead, King has called on Congress to defund the federal agencies that would carry out Obama’s executive order. Unfortunately for him, that approach is “impossible.”

Both Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have expressed support for Obama’s executive order in the absence of Congressional action on comprehensive immigration reform.

Several Republican governors who may run for president in 2016 are considering legal action aimed at blocking the president’s executive order. Such a lawsuit could raise the standing of Texas Governor Rick Perry, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, or Indiana Governor Mike Pence with Iowa conservatives who are likely to participate in the next GOP caucuses. I am seeking comment on whether Iowa Governor Terry Branstad might join this legal action.

The Obama administration is already preparing a legal defense that would include precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling on an Arizona law relating to illegal immigration. Federal officials “have always exercised discretion” in prioritizing cases for deportation.

In a few minutes, Bruce Braley and Joni Ernst will hold their third and final debate. KCAU in Sioux City and ABC-5 in Des Moines are televising the debate locally, and C-SPAN is showing it nationwide. I’ll be liveblogging after the jump.

Before the first debate, I was concerned that Braley might lose his cool, but he did well both that night as well as in last Saturday’s debate.

UPDATE: C-SPAN has the debate video archived here, for those who missed it.

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.