The U.S. Senate approved a continuing resolution today to fund the federal government at current levels through March 4, 2011. Both the cloture motion and the bill itself passed by large bipartisan majorities; Iowa Democrat Tom Harkin and Republican Chuck Grassley voted for the cloture motion and the funding resolution. Harkin slammed Republicans for blocking the fiscal year 2011 omnibus bill last week, because unlike the continuing resolution approved today, the omnibus bill would have increased funding for programs such as Head Start, child care subsidies, meals for seniors and drugs for AIDS patients. The House of Representatives is expected to approve the continuing resolution later today to stop the government from running out of money at midnight. UPDATE: The House approved the spending bill by 193 to 165, with 75 representatives not voting. All five Iowans voted, and they split along party lines.

A bigger problem will come in March, when House Republicans force through major cuts in domestic spending (probably with the eager cooperation of President Barack Obama). Those will be a drag on the economy, erasing any stimulative effect from the lousy deal Obama struck on extending the Bush tax cuts.

Meanwhile, the House gave final approval to the food safety bill today on a mostly party-line vote of 215 to 144. Iowa’s representatives split the usual way, with Democrats Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell voting for the bill and Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King voting against it. I am still surprised that the Senate resurrected the food safety bill on Sunday. I have yet to see any explanation for why Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma agreed to let it pass. Coburn had been that bill’s most vocal opponent in the Senate all year. It’s not as if Coburn suddenly decided to stop being a jerk; he appears ready to block the 9/11 responders bill from becoming law during the lame-duck session. Even some Fox News commentators are upset about that political maneuver.

The Senate took a step toward ratifying the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) today. Eleven Republicans joined all Democrats present to approve a cloture motion on that treaty, which the U.S. and Russia signed in April. Grassley voted with most of his GOP colleagues against the cloture motion on START; he has voted for various Republican amendments offered to the treaty. I haven’t seen any statement from his office explaining his opposition. The last START expired in December 2009, and we need to ratify the new treaty in order to resume inspecting Russian nuclear bases. There could hardly be a more important national security issue. Ronald Reagan’s former chief arms control negotiator said last month that Iran and North Korea were the “only two governments in the world that wouldn’t like to see this treaty ratified.”

The House of Representatives approved a bill last night to extend all the Bush tax cuts for two years, reduce the estate tax, and extend benefits for some unemployed people by 13 months. The bill passed by an unusual bipartisan vote of 277 to 148. The Democratic caucus split 139 in favor of the bill and 112 against, while Republicans overwhelmingly supported the bill by a 138 to 36 margin. The roll call shows that Iowa Democrats Leonard Boswell (IA-03) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted for the bill, as did Republican Tom Latham (IA-04). Democrat Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Republican Steve King (IA-05) both voted no.

It’s a disgrace that House Democrats went along with a so-called “compromise” that makes the lowest-income workers pay more, does nothing for people who have exhausted 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, and will lay the groundwork for big cuts to domestic spending and Social Security in the future. President Barack Obama deserves the most blame for not negotiating a better deal with Republican leaders. He could have changed the dynamic months ago by making a clear threat to veto any extension of the tax cuts for the highest incomes. But he lacked the courage or the integrity to stand up for tax policies he claims to believe in.

Democrats should nevertheless have voted against this bill, in my opinion. They campaigned against the Bush tax cuts for a decade and are now extending them at all income levels, setting the stage for a permanent extension two years from now. Sorry, Sue Dvorsky: that’s not standing up for the middle class.

It’s a moral failure for the Democratic Party to ask people earning less than $20,000 and families earning less than $40,000 to pay a bit more while the wealthiest people don’t sacrifice a penny. Democrats may have worried the Republican-controlled House would pass an even less favorable bill in the new year, which Obama would sign.

After the jump I’ve posted statements from Braley, Loebsack and Boswell. You can tell Loebsack isn’t proud of this vote, and Boswell makes some excuses too. But it’s consistent with his style: “As I have always said, my legislative philosophy is if you can’t take home the whole loaf of bread, grab as many slices as you can to benefit your constituents […].”

Braley’s press release touting his no vote uses a Republican frame (“Americans spoke clearly on November second. Congress must get serious about reducing the deficit and become better stewards of their tax dollars […]”). His remarks during the House floor debate also focused on fiscal conservatism, although Braley also threw in some populist lines criticizing the tax breaks for the rich. He also cited the threat to “the long-term viability of Social Security.”

UPDATE: In the comments, John Deeth mentioned the House vote on an amendment to raise the estate tax rate and lower the exemption to that tax received just 194 yes votes, all from Democrats. Braley and Loebsack voted with the majority of their caucus, but Boswell was among the 60 Democrats who voted with Republicans. Changing the bill would have sent the measure back to the Senate rather than directly to the president’s desk.

The House of Representatives approved a stand-alone bill today to repeal the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. The vote was 250 to 175, with just 15 Republicans crossing party lines to vote yes and 15 Democrats voting no. Iowa’s Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) all voted for repeal, while Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted against. Boswell is the only veteran among Iowa’s current House delegation. He served in the Army for 20 years, including two tours in Vietnam.

I haven’t seen any Iowa poll on this subject, but numerous national polls have indicated that more than 70 percent of Americans believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military. That figure was 77 percent in the most recent poll on the issue, conducted by Langer Research for ABC News and the Washington Post. A Pentagon survey this year found that “70 percent of surveyed service members believe that the impact on their units would be positive, mixed or of no consequence at all.” Support for ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was significantly lower among Marines, however.

The House of Representatives approved the DREAM Act on December 8 by a vote of 216 to 198. The bill would give some undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children a path to citizenship. Eligible people could obtain “conditional” status for six years provided they have no criminal record, have lived in the country for at least five years, and have graduated from high school or received a GED. To maintain legal status, people would have to pass a criminal background check and demonstrate that they have either attended college or served in the military for at least two years. Although 38 House Democrats opposed the DREAM Act yesterday, all three Iowa Democrats (Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell) voted for it. Only eight House Republicans crossed party lines to support this bill, and those did not include Tom Latham or Steve King. In recent weeks, King has slammed the DREAM Act as a “multi-billion dollar amnesty nightmare.”

The White House supports the DREAM Act, and the administration has mostly exempted students even as deportations of undocumented immigrants increased since President Barack Obama took office. However, Obama didn’t insist on passage of the DREAM Act as part of his tax cut deal with Congressional Republican leaders. The Senate is expected to vote on the House version of this bill next week. Although some Republicans support the DREAM Act, including Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, I would be surprised if it passes during the lame duck session.

Incidentally, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has supported legislation like the DREAM Act in the last, but last week he said he opposed current bill before Congress. He must be aware that if he runs for president again, he’ll need to win over GOP primary voters and caucus-goers who overwhelmingly oppose what conservatives call “amnesty.”

Also on December 8, the House voted on the Seniors Protection Act. According to a statement from Braley’s office, that bill “would have provided a one-time $250 payment to seniors on Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), railroad retirement, and veterans disability compensation or pension benefits due to the lack of a cost-of-living adjustment for 2011 (COLA).” The bill received 254 votes in favor and 153 votes against but still failed, because it was brought to the House floor under a suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote to pass. The Iowa delegation again split on party lines.

Meanwhile, the offices of Representatives Braley, Loebsack and Boswell still have not responded to my requests for comment on Obama’s tax deal with Republicans. On December 9 the House Democratic caucus reportedly voted against bringing the deal to the floor, but that was a non-binding resolution. The bill could still pass with a minority of Democratic votes and a majority of Republicans. On the Senate side, Republican Chuck Grassley says the deal is better than doing nothing. Democrat Tom Harkin says he is working behind the scenes to improve the deal and is inclined to vote no without some changes. However, even as he criticized Obama’s negotiating strategy, Harkin didn’t rule out supporting the deal until he sees the final package.

UPDATE: Braley released this noncommittal statement on December 9:

“As the tax cut package takes shape, I want to reiterate my support for a tax cut extension for every American family on incomes up to $250,000.  I continue to fight for an extension of unemployment benefits, especially during the holiday season.  I remain extremely concerned that extending Bush’s tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of Americans will explode the deficit.”

“I continue to fight to cut taxes for Iowa’s families and I am working to ensure our future generations are not saddled with extreme debt.  I look forward to reading the legislative language produced on the bill before making a final decision on these important issues.”

SECOND UPDATE: Steve King talked to the Sioux City Journal’s Bret Hayworth:

King said he dislikes that the tax cuts are only extended for two years. He said he wouldn’t go to the mat to extend the tax cuts permanently, but that they should be at a minimum extended five years so people sitting on capital to invest will know their tax liabilities for a longer period.

Further, King doesn’t like the unemployment benefits extension, since he said that only encourages people to not work and continue to receive those dollars.

THIRD UPDATE: Loebsack’s office says he “has consistently supported extending the middle-class tax cuts. He is also pleased to see that an extension of emergency unemployment benefits and additional tax cuts for hard-working families are included, along with potential extensions of renewable energy tax credits.  He is actively working to improve the proposal as it develops in order to ensure that the best interests of Iowans are being served.”  

Interested in many political issues, this is my first diary here. I publish previously this bid for redistricting Iowa in SwingStateProject, and desmoinesdem tell me for publish it here. Then, I'm here. I hope the people find it interesting.

Sorry if you see some mistake writing, but I'm not a native speaker.

The best luck for the democrats from Iowa 🙂

The House of Representatives voted today to extend the Bush tax cuts affecting individuals earning less than $200,000 annually and families earning less than $250,000. The vote was 234 to 188, mostly along party lines. Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell all voted for the bill, while Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King voted against it. If you click on the roll call, you might notice the vote was on a “Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment with an Amendment” to the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III. Adding the tax cut language to this vehicle, instead of introducing a new bill, was done to deny Republicans the chance to make a motion to recommit and attach the rest of the Bush tax cuts. David Waldman walks you through the House procedural weeds.

Only three House Republicans voted for this bill, which would permanently extend the Bush tax cuts for 98 percent of filers. Every recent poll shows a minority want to extend the tax cuts for the top income levels. It’s disgusting that Republicans can’t accept even this bill, which gives more money back to wealthier people anyway.

The White House response to today’s vote was even more disgraceful:

“The President continues to believe that extending middle class tax cuts is the most important thing we can do for our economy right now and he applauds the House for passing a permanent extension.  But, because Republicans have made it clear that they won’t pass a middle class extension without also extending tax cuts for the wealthy, the President has asked Director Lew and Secretary Geithner to work with Congress to find a way forward.  Those discussions started just yesterday and are continuing this afternoon.  The talks are ongoing and productive, but any reports that we are near a deal in the tax cuts negotiations are inaccurate and premature.”

Who still believes that Barack Obama wants to win this battle? He isn’t even trying. I wonder if he’s been planning to cave on this issue all along.

Meanwhile, the House passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 today by a vote of 264 to 157. All Iowa Democrats voted yes, as did Latham (one of just 17 Republicans to cross the aisle on this issue). King voted no, along with most of the Republican caucus. The Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent in August. It would improve the school lunch program and fund other child nutrition programs, but unfortunately food stamp funding was used to cover part of the cost. Senator Tom Harkin’s office summarized the bill’s provisions, and I’ve posted that statement after the jump. Referring to the food stamp funding, Harkin states, “President Obama, however, has committed to work with Congress to replace this offset before these SNAP [food stamp] cuts take place in November 2013.” I wouldn’t count on the president keeping that promise in light of today’s White House statement on tax cuts.

UPDATE: Senator Tom Harkin said on December 2 that if Obama caves on the Bush tax cuts, “He would then just be hoping and praying that Sarah Palin gets the nomination.”

The U.S. Senate approved the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act today by a 73 to 25 vote. Tom Harkin and all other Senate Democrats voted for the bill, as did 15 Republicans including Iowa’s Chuck Grassley. Grassley also was among 14 Republicans who joined Democrats to support the cloture motion ending debate on the food safety bill yesterday.

Some details on the bill as well as its complicated path through the Senate are after the jump.  

The House of Representatives on November 18 failed to approve a three-month extension of unemployment benefits beyond November 30.

If the measure is not renewed, some 2 million people by the end of the year will stop getting weekly checks they receive as they look for work, says the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for workers’ rights.

By a vote of 258 to 154, the proposal to extend benefits through February fell short of the two-thirds margin needed to pass the House under special rules allowing an expedited vote.

Some 21 Republicans joined 237 Democrats to vote for the measure, while 11 Democrats and 143 Republicans voted against.

Under normal rules, the measure needs only a simple majority to pass. Democratic leaders in the House said they would schedule another vote for the week of November 29.

The roll call shows that Iowa’s House members split on party lines. Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) voted to extend the unemployment benefits, while Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted against doing so.

The bill that failed would have cost $12.5 billion, and various House Republicans cited concerns about increasing the deficit. That’s a sick joke when the GOP caucus is eager to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent without any plan to pay for them. Jobless benefits are among the most efficient ways the government can stimulate economic activity, because people who are out of work will almost certainly spend any additional income on goods and services. Tax cuts in general are far less stimulative, especially tax cuts for people with plenty of disposable income.

In other Congressional news, House Democrats elected outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as minority leader this week. She defeated Blue Dog Heath Shuler by 150 to 43 in a secret ballot vote. Outgoing Majority Leader Steny Hoyer will be minority whip, and outgoing Majority Whip Jim Clyburn will be assistant leader, a newly-created position. Braley’s staff confirmed that he voted for Pelosi, but for some reason, Boswell’s and Loebsack’s staffs declined to answer the Des Moines Register’s question about whom those representatives backed for minority leader. I would be shocked if either of them voted for Shuler.

Time for another Bleeding Heartland foray into counterfactual history, inspired by conversations with many Democrats and a few Republicans during the past week.

In early 2009, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee included Representative Leonard Boswell on its list of 40 “Frontline” Democrats, incumbents acknowledged to be vulnerable. House Democrats lost more than 60 seats on November 2, with most “tossup” seats falling to the GOP. Chet Culver lost the governor’s race by more than 100,000 votes, and Democrats fared worse than expected in the Iowa House and Senate races. Yet voters re-elected Boswell in a swing district (partisan voting index D+1). Not only that, he won by a larger margin than Bruce Braley. Who would have predicted that six months ago?

All of the above raises an obvious question: would Boswell be heading back to Congress if Republicans had nominated Jim Gibbons rather than Brad Zaun?  

Now that Representative Bruce Braley has survived a Republican landslide despite a bucketload of money thrown at him, I thought I’d check to see how others in his House Populist Caucus fared on Tuesday.

Short story: the Populist Caucus lost five members. As a group, they fared better than the Blue Dogs or New Democrats, but not as well as the Progressive Caucus. The details are below.

In a few hours we’ll know whether seven-term Representative Leonard Boswell foiled Iowa Republicans again. For months the third Congressional district was considered a tossup race, and Republican Brad Zaun led in two GOP internal polls released this summer. However, Boswell has led the most recent polls. The Hill commissioned a survey in mid-October that found Boswell beating Zaun 49 percent to 37 percent. According to Tim Sahd’s final rankings for the National Journal, IA-03 isn’t among 90 House seats most likely to change hands.

If Boswell survives a Republican wave election, it will be good news for Iowa Democrats, but not for people who hate negative political advertising. Beginning in August, Boswell and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee simply buried Zaun. Bleeding Heartland discussed early commercials for this race here and here. Details on the closing arguments from both sides are after the jump.

Representative Leonard Boswell and Republican challenger Brad Zaun are about to hold their only debate of the campaign on KCCI-TV at 7 pm. (They also taped a joint appearance on Iowa Public Television earlier this month.)

I’ll update this post later with thoughts on the debate. Share any thoughts about the debate or the third Congressional district race in this thread.

TUESDAY UPDATE: I only caught part of last night’s debate live, but watched the whole tape this morning. Boswell and Zaun had their strong and weak points, and I doubt many people’s minds were changed by the debate. Both candidates gave strong closing statements framing the choice in this election. More specific comments about the debate are after the jump.

The U.S. Department of Transportation awarded $230 million in federal funding today for a new Amtrak route connecting Chicago and Iowa City, Senators Tom Harkin and Dick Durbin announced. The route will go through the Quad Cities. From a statement released by Harkin’s office:

The project – scheduled for completion in 2015 – will create 588 jobs per year for the first four years of design and construction.  Once initiated, the new service is expected to increase business activity at $25 million per year. […]

The new Chicago – Quad Cities – Iowa City route will provide two daily round-trips and carry trains traveling at speeds up to 79 miles per hour (mph) with an expected trip time of less than 5 hours.  The long-term vision for the line includes expanding the frequency of trains to offer more than two daily round-trip trains; extending the route; and making additional infrastructure investments to increase speeds from 79 mph to 90 mph, or even 110 mph.

Today’s news is a pleasant surprise. Although Governor Chet Culver and several members of Congress strongly advocated for expanding passenger rail in Iowa, the U.S. Department of Transportation did not fund an earlier grant request supporting Amtrak routes between Chicago and Iowa City and Chicago and Dubuque.

A 2008 Amtrak feasibility study on passenger rail from Iowa City to the Quad Cities estimated annual ridership on the route at “about 187,000 passengers, based on two daily round-trips and if improvements are made allowing maximum speeds of 79 mph.” Typical passenger trains reach maximum speeds of 79 mph; anything faster than 110 mph is considered “high-speed rail.”

More details on today’s announced funding are in the full statement from Harkin’s office, which I’ve posted after the jump. The Quad-City Rail Coalition website has additional background information on the proposed route. Central Iowa business and political leaders hope a Chicago-Iowa City passenger rail link could eventually be extended through Des Moines to the Council Bluffs-Omaha metro area.

UPDATE: I’ve added a press release from the governor’s office with more details. It states that first-year ridership on the route between Iowa City and Chicago is projected at 246,800.

TUESDAY UPDATE: Senator Chuck Grassley also expressed support for this passenger rail link: “You’re finding a situation where, connected with the problems of Homeland Security, the problems of terrorists on airplanes, the fact that airlines are having trouble providing the service they used to provide, alternative service like rail service is something that, at least on a regional basis, is going to pay off.”

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

The weather’s been dry and unseasonably warm this October, ideal for candidates and volunteers. It’s not too late to spend a few hours helping a campaign near you. The state legislative candidates can especially use help with phone-banking and door-knocking. Even if your home district is a shoo-in for one party, you probably live near one of the two dozen Iowa House districts or four Iowa Senate districts considered competitive.

For instance, the Des Moines area has basically no swing districts, other than House district 59 in the western suburbs, but it’s easy for Democrats in the metro to volunteer for State Senator Staci Appel’s campaign in Senate district 37. You don’t even have to drive down to Warren or Madison County. Volunteers can make phone calls for Appel at the AFSCME Local 61 office (4320 NW Second Avenue in Des Moines) on Wednesdays and Thursdays from 4 pm to 8 pm, on Saturdays from noon to 6 pm, or on Sundays from 1 pm to 6 pm. I did this one evening, and it’s so easy.

If you want to help but don’t know how or where, I recommend calling your county Democrats or the Iowa Democratic Party (515-244-7292). Volunteers will also be needed on election day for phone-banking and contacting likely Democratic supporters who haven’t voted yet.

Newspapers across the state have been weighing in on the elections. I’ve been browsing the endorsement editorials, and a few have left me wondering what the editors could have been thinking. Some examples are after the jump.

Since the last time Bleeding Heartland caught up on the third Congressional district race, seven-term incumbent Leonard Boswell’s chances for re-election have improved. Long considered Iowa’s most vulnerable Democrat in Congress, Boswell may now be in a stronger position than he has been all year.

New commercials, a new poll, and more are after the jump.  

The third district Congressional race is expected to be one of this year’s most competitive elections in Iowa, and both sides have been hitting the airwaves this month. Brad Zaun is offering voters a generic Republican message, while incumbent Leonard Boswell and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee have produced negative commercials specifically tailored to Zaun.

Ads, transcripts and more are after the jump.

The House of Representatives approved the Small Business Jobs Act today by a vote of 237 to 187. Iowans Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell joined most House Democrats in supporting the bill; Tom Latham and Steve King joined all but one House Republican in voting no. CNN summarized the bill’s main provisions:

The Small Business Jobs Act authorizes the creation of a $30 billion fund run by the Treasury Department that would deliver ultra-cheap capital to banks with less than $10 billion in assets.

The idea is that community banks do the lion’s share of lending to small businesses, and pumping capital into them will get money in the hands of Main Street businesses.

Another provision aims to increase the flow of capital by providing $1.5 billion in grants to state lending programs that in turn support loans to small businesses. The state programs have proven themselves to be efficient, targeted and effective, but with many states struggling to balance their budgets, the programs are going broke.

The bill would also provide a slew of tax breaks that will cost $12 billion over a decade, according to a preliminary estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation. The breaks aim to encourage small businesses to purchase new equipment, to incentivize venture capital firms to invest in small businesses, and to motivate entrepreneurs to start their own business.

When the Senate approved the same bill on a mostly party-line vote, Democrat Tom Harkin voted for it, while Republican Chuck Grassley voted against. Several House Republicans today characterized the lending fund as another “bailout”; Grassley used the same talking point last week. Republicans have supported similar small business tax breaks in the past, and the House Republicans’ new “Pledge to America” mentions small business many times.

In other news from Congress, a motion to start debate on new campaign finance regulations fell one vote short in the Senate. All 59 senators who caucus with Democrats voted for the DISCLOSE Act, but 60 votes are needed to pass a cloture motion. Grassley was among 39 Senate Republicans to voted against starting debate on this bill. Open Congress summarized the DISCLOSE Act as follows:

This is the Democrats’ response to the Supreme Courts’ recent Citizens United v. FEC ruling. It seeks to increase transparency of corporate and special-interest money in national political campaigns. It would require organizations involved in political campaigning to disclose the identity of the large donors, and to reveal their identities in any political ads they fund. It would also bar foreign corporations, government contractors and TARP recipients from making political expenditures. Notably, the bill would exempt all long-standing, non-profit organizations with more than 500,000 members from having to disclose their donor lists.

The DISCLOSE Act wouldn’t do nearly enough to reduce the influence of money in American politics, but it’s amazing to see Republicans united against even these modest disclosure rules and restrictions. Democratic Senate candidate Roxanne Conlin’s campaign sharply criticized Grassley’s vote:

“Senator Charles Grassley voted today to allow foreign interference in U.S. elections.  This vote means that BP and other foreign companies, the Iranian government and other foreign governments, are free to spend any amount of money to affect the outcome of U.S. elections,” said Conlin spokesperson Paulee Lipsman.

“In voting against debate on the federal DISCLOSE ACT, meant to provide Iowans with information on who is funding campaign attack ads, Senator Grassley also sided with the Wall Street bankers, insurance companies, corporations and other special interests who have filled his campaign war chest.  The Senator is protecting those who want to anonymously produce the ads filled with distortions and lies that are intended to influence voters.”

Grassley also voted against ending the filibuster on the DISCLOSE ACT on July 27.

The conservative 501(c)4 organization American Future Fund commissioned polls last week in Iowa’s first, second and third Congressional districts. Yesterday the group released partial results from the surveys, touting the supposedly low re-elect numbers for Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03).

The topline results showed Democratic incumbents leading their challengers in all three races, even among the “certain to vote” sub-sample.

Representative Leonard Boswell’s campaign held a press conference this morning to announce an endorsement from Mark Rees, who finished fourth in the seven-way Republican primary in Iowa’s third Congressional district. Rees positioned himself as a moderate and mostly self-funded his campaign. He only won about 4 percent of the GOP primary votes. From a Boswell campaign press release:

“Boswell’s lifelong record of service to this state and our country is rarely seen in politics today,” Rees said. “His character, judgment, and integrity are without question. I trust Congressmen Boswell. I trust him to listen to his constituents and place our interests above his Party. I trust him to make sound, solid decisions void of any self-interest. And above all else, I trust him to always represent this state with honor and integrity.”

Boswell accepted the endorsement and praised Rees for representing a moderate voice in the GOP primary election.

“During the primary, Mark did not indulge in emotionally-charged rhetoric to score political points, and instead offered substantive policy viewpoints,” Boswell said. “His support is a testament to my history as a legislator in Congress, as I have always sought the middle ground in order to bring about solutions for our country. I look forward to working with Mark as we look toward the November election.”

WHO’s Dave Price reports that at today’s press conference, Rees “didn’t say anything bad” about Republican nominee Brad Zaun, but he did answer “yes” when asked “if Zaun was too extreme for the party.” The Republican Party of Iowa questioned whether Rees was really a Republican, noting that he voted in the 2006 Democratic primary. A statement from Zaun’s campaign suggested that Rees is a hypocrite for supporting “a 14-year, career politician who embodies ‘business as usual’ in Washington, DC” after claiming during the primary that voters he met were frustrated “with career politicians and business as usual in Washington.”

When the Boswell campaign announced Friday that a Republican would endorse the Democrat today, I was hoping for more of a game-changer than Rees, who isn’t well-known outside West Des Moines. That said, Rees may be able to help Boswell among moderate Republicans and independents in some swingy suburban precincts. About two-thirds of Rees’ votes in the GOP primary came from Polk County (where Zaun is unusually strong).  Within Polk County, Rees’ support came primarily from the western suburbs of Des Moines, especially West Des Moines, Clive and Johnston. Rees’ stands on the issues are a better fit for moderates than Zaun’s, so his support may help Boswell claim the center this fall. Meanwhile, Republicans will keep recycling their rhetoric about “liberal” Boswell serving Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco agenda, blah blah blah.

Coming off its worst week yet, Brad Zaun’s campaign is hyping a new poll showing him leading seven-term Representative Leonard Boswell by 51 percent to 41 percent in Iowa’s third district. The poll was commissioned by former U.S. Senator Norm Coleman’s American Action Forum, and taken by Republican pollster Ayres, McHenry & Associates. The poll was in the field from August 16 through 18, before a cascade of bad news for Zaun hit central Iowa newspapers, radio and television stations, and that’s not even the biggest problem with poll.

More details on the new Republican poll, as well as a preview of a Boswell campaign argument against Zaun, are after the jump.

Catching up on some news from last week, I see former First Lady Christie Vilsack not so subtly suggested that Leonard Boswell should be ready to step down from Congress in 2012:

Vilsack said during an interview at the Iowa State Fair that she is considering “other options” like running for congress.

“I just turned 60, so timing is important – political timing as well as personal timing,” she said.  “It’ll be a whole new ballgame after the election and after redistricting, where we see the districts line up.” […]

“Nobody will actually have a claim on any particular district, I think, because it’ll be a whole new set of voters and a whole new set of constituents,” she said.

The next day, Boswell indicated that he’s not going anywhere:

“Christie [Vilsack] is a smart person. I’m planning on doing this for a while, so I hope that she has got other things she likes to do for a while because I’m going to continue to do this,” Boswell said last week at the Iowa State Fair.

A reporter followed up with this question: “Does that mean you’re announcing for 2012?”

Boswell replied: “Well, it’s not far from it.”

I recognize that politicians can’t control the questions journalists ask them, but this isn’t a conversation Iowa Democrats should have now. Even if Boswell were planning to retire in the next cycle, no incumbent seeking re-election would declare himself a lame duck at this stage.

After Iowa redraws the lines for four Congressional districts, the new third district, including Polk County, is likely to be the state’s most competitive. I would prefer to see a new Democrat nominated in 2012, and Vilsack would be a strong candidate in many ways. But let’s focus on re-electing Boswell this November. I think he will defeat Republican Brad Zaun, who has nothing new to say and sounds out of his depth when explaining his about-face on biofuels subsidies. That said, the Cook Political Report and Swing State Project recently moved this race from “leans Democrat” to “tossup.” The Rothenberg Political Report still sees IA-03 as a “lean Democrat” contest.

Following up on my post about a very bad week for Brad Zaun’s campaign, here’s a piece by Civic Skinny with more details on Zaun’s unpaid bills:

According to Polk County District Court records, Republican Zaun ignored for years – until he decided to run for Congress – bills for $1,070.77 from Iowa Health Des Moines and $50.66 from Radiology PC. He was sued in March of 2005 and failed to appear in court or answer the complaint. Judgment was entered against him in May of that year.

He continued to ignore the bills and the judgment against him, and in February 2006 the court ordered the Polk County sheriff to garnish money in Zaun’s account at Liberty Bank in Des Moines. But it wasn’t until last Nov. 17 – four-and-a-half years after judgment was entered against him – that the court entered a “release and satisfaction of judgment” order indicating that the judgment, the interest and all costs had been paid.

Two weeks later, the Urbandale legislator announced he would run for Congress. He won a seven-way primary and now faces incumbent Democrat Leonard Boswell. “I’ll take the same principles of fiscal responsibility…that I’ve lived by…to Washington,” he told The Des Moines Register last December. He didn’t say whether those principles included being a deadbeat.

Aside: The Iowa Republican platform says medical care “is a privilege, not a right.” But, to give Zaun his due, it doesn’t say you must pay for that privilege.

I was wondering whether last week’s revelations will do lasting damage to Zaun’s campaign. Kathie Obradovich tries to answer that question in her latest Des Moines Register column:

I asked Iowa State University political scientist Dianne Bystrom whether voters actually care about this kind of stuff.

She pointed to a bipartisan survey done for the Project on Campaign Conduct at the University of Virginia in 2000. A majority of voters – 57 percent – believed negative information provided by one candidate about his or her opponent was relevant and useful when it related to: talking one way and voting another, not paying taxes, accepting campaign contributions from special interests, current drug or alcohol abuse, and his or her voting record as an elected official.

A bigger majority, 63 percent, believed certain negative personal information should be considered out of bounds: lack of military service, past personal financial problems, actions of a candidate’s family members, and past drug or alcohol abuse.

So the voters in this survey, at least, wouldn’t want to hear about Zaun’s past financial hardships, except as it related to paying taxes.

Zaun said at the Iowa State Fair, “a lot of people in the 3rd District have been behind on their bills,” and that’s true. He added, “I never waited for the government to come in and help me out. It wasn’t their responsibility and it’s not any of your responsibility.” But in a different way, he did wait for the government to step in and deal with his problem. The court had to order money garnished from his account after he ignored its judgment. It’s one thing to be behind on some medical bills and your mortgage payment. It’s another to defy a court order to pay your bills, as Zaun (a state senator!) did in 2005 and 2006. The outstanding bills weren’t fully paid until three and a half years after the court told the sheriff to take money from Zaun’s bank account. Perhaps that doesn’t rise to the level of “talks one way and votes another,” but it undermines the message of personal responsibility and financial restraint Zaun will try to use against Boswell.

Combined with the 2001 police report first reported by the Des Moines Register on August 19 and picked up by Politico, the news about Zaun’s financial history could hurt his campaign’s fundraising, increasing Boswell’s money advantage in the final weeks. Krusty Konservative thinks Zaun’s Republican rivals were “idiots” not to vet the nominee more thoroughly before the crowded IA-03 primary.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? Is Zaun looking at a serious problem for his campaign, or nothing more than a few bad news cycles in August?

UPDATE: Zaun tried to change the subject yesterday with a boilerplate press release: “Congressman Boswell has become a ‘rubber stamp’ for Speaker Pelosi and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party […] Boswell supports Pelosi over 98% of the time, and her brand of San Francisco liberalism has nothing in common with the needs of Iowa.” Yawn. Tying the Democrat to Pelosi didn’t work too well for Republicans in Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional district earlier this year.

Iowa Republicans talk a good game about winning the third Congressional district in November, but Brad Zaun faced a number of setbacks this week in his campaign against seven-term Democratic incumbent Leonard Boswell.  

It’s been months since we’ve had new public nonpartisan polling of Iowa general election matchups, but three Republican polls have come out in the last ten days. None of them hold good news for Iowa Democrats.

After the jump I summarize results from statewide polls done by Rasmussen Reports and Voter/Consumer Research for The Iowa Republican blog, as well as a Victory Enterprises poll of Iowa’s third Congressional district race.

Yesterday the House of Representatives approved and President Barack Obama signed a $26.1 billion package to support state education and Medicaid budgets in the current fiscal year. The bill passed the House by a 247 to 161 vote. Iowa’s House delegation split on party lines, as with the 2009 federal stimulus bill and previous legislation designed to support public sector jobs in the states. Iowa will receive about $96.5 million of the $10 billion in education funding, enough to save an estimated 1,800 teachers’ jobs.

The bill also contains $16.1 billion in Federal Medical Assistance Percentage or FMAP funding, including about $128 million to support Iowa’s Medicaid budget in the 2011 fiscal year. Last week I read conflicting reports about how much Medicaid assistance Iowa would receive, but staffers for Representatives Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack confirmed yesterday that $128 million is the correct figure. That’s a bit more than Iowa legislators were counting on for FMAP funding in the 2011 budget. Extra federal spending on Medicaid also “has an economic benefit for the state of Iowa far greater than the federal government’s initial investment,” according to Iowa State University economist Dave Swenson.

For the last several days, I have been searching for some comment on this legislation from Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad. I’ve found nothing in news clips, and his campaign has not issued a press release on the federal fiscal aid since the Senate approved the bill on August 4.

Branstad rails against “one-time sources” of funding to support the state budget, but he has nothing to say about $96.5 million for Iowa schools and $128 million for Iowans dependent on Medicaid services.

Branstad is happy to run false advertising about the number of teachers’ jobs supposedly lost in Iowa, but he has nothing to say when federal action saves a significant number of teachers’ jobs. The issue is a bit awkward for Branstad, because Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King voted against the fiscal aid bill in the House, just as Republican Chuck Grassley voted no in the Senate.

Perhaps Branstad lacks the courage to go beyond vague campaign rhetoric about excessive government spending. It’s easy to talk abstractly about “one-time” funding, but risky to slam government support for education and Medicaid. CNN’s latest nationwide poll, which was in the field from August 6 through August 10, asked respondents, “Do you favor or oppose a bill in which the federal government would provide 26 billion dollars to state governments to pay for Medicaid benefits and the salaries of public school teachers or other government workers?” 60 percent of respondents favored such a bill, while only 38 percent opposed it.

Speaking of conspicuous silence from Branstad, when will he tell us how he plans to keep his contradictory promises to cut state spending by 15 percent while having the state pay a larger share of mental health and school funding?

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Republican Congressional candidate Brad Zaun has promised to give voters 14 reasons not to re-elect 14-year incumbent Leonard Boswell in Iowa’s third district. Last week Zaun unveiled reason number 1: Boswell “has been listed as a ‘follower’ according to the non-partisan website www.GovTrack.us. […] Boswell has sponsored only 66 bills since January 7, 1997, and 63 never made it out of committee. Only three of Boswell’s bills were successfully enacted…and of those three, two were for renaming federal buildings.”

Bleeding Heartland readers who are familiar with the workings of the Iowa Senate may be amused by backbencher Zaun calling someone else a “follower.” Technically, Zaun is one of four assistant Iowa Senate Republican leaders; that’s a four-way tie for the number 3 spot in an 18-member caucus. He isn’t exactly a commanding presence at the capitol. Boswell was much more influential as Iowa Senate president in the 1990s before his first election to Congress. But I digress.

Zaun misleads by implying members of Congress can only be judged by the bills they sponsor, and I’ll have more to say on that after the jump. First, let’s see how Iowa’s two Republicans in the House of Representatives look through GovTrack’s prism.  

Brad Zaun’s public record faced little scrutiny during the seven-way Republican primary in Iowa’s third Congressional district, except for one time when Dave Funk targeted Zaun’s vote for an anti-bullying bill in the Iowa Senate. During the general election campaign, however, Zaun will have to defend his record.

Yesterday Representative Leonard Boswell’s campaign highlighted Zaun’s knee-jerk defense of Lynn Walding in February, when Governor Chet Culver let Walding know he would not be reappointed as head of the Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division. Zaun told the Sioux City Journal,

“I’m very upset about this,” Zaun said. “It seems to me that because of the dysfunction that’s going on in the governor’s office that he’s just the fall guy. I think the governor should reconsider because I think he was one of the best, most qualified people that works for the governor. I find it very disappointing.”

If Zaun had tried to find out why Culver declined to reappoint Walding, he might have learned about excessive spending and strange personnel decisions in the Alcoholic Beverages Division under Walding’s leadership. Those became public knowledge last month, when the state auditor’s office released a report on the Alcoholic Beverages Division in 2008 and 2009. However, Walding’s extravagant purchases and other actions raised concerns in the governor’s office two years ago, prompting the Department of Management to impose new controls on the division. The Des Moines Register reported on August 5 that Walding “sought to discipline a state worker who blew the whistle on potential misspending at the agency” and was seen shredding boxes of documents before he left state government in April.

Zaun seized an opportunity to bash a Democratic governor without doing any fact-finding on whether Walding deserved to keep his job. Absurdly, he declared Walding to be one of the “best, most-qualified” people in state government. Tell that to the workers who feared retaliation if they came forward with complaints about money wasted. Residents of Iowa’s third district need a representative who does his homework before mouthing off.

I posted the Boswell campaign’s statement after the jump.

As of yesterday, 44 of Iowa’s 99 counties are under disaster proclamations because of flooding in June or July. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee noted today that Republican Brad Zaun, the GOP nominee against Representative Leonard Boswell, has a record of opposing government assistance for flood victims. At an IowaPolitics.com forum in March of this year, Zaun suggested that Americans have forgotten about “personal responsibility” and gave this example: “We lost that as a country, we expect when there’s a flood or something that’s going on, the government to come in and help us.” Like all other Republicans in the Iowa House and Senate, Zaun voted against the bills that created the I-JOBS infrastructure bonding program in 2009. I-JOBS included $100 million to rebuild the University of Iowa campus, $46.5 million to rebuild sites in Cedar Rapids, Linn County, Palo, Elkader and Charles City, plus $118.5 million in “competitive grants available for reconstruction of local public buildings and flood control prevention.”

Zaun told the Des Moines Register that the DCCC took his remarks out of context, adding, “Obviously the people who are affected by the [Lake Delhi] dam break, I would obviously expect the government to play a role in that… there’s certainly is a role for government when there’s big disasters like this.”

What would that role be, Mr. Zaun? You voted against recovery funding after the biggest flood disaster in this state’s history. The Des Moines Register’s Jason Clayworth observes, “Republicans have previously said their opposition [to I-JOBS] was primarily due to their concern about long-term debt and not a sign of opposition against flood mitigation or recovery.” Fine. Let Zaun spell out how he would have paid to rebuild the University of Iowa and Linn County landmarks, let alone finance flood mitigation efforts elsewhere, without state borrowing. We didn’t have hundreds of millions of dollars lying around in 2008 and 2009, because the worst recession in 60 years brought state revenues down.

Zaun wants to have it both ways: he brags about opposing I-JOBS but doesn’t want voters to think he’s against government aid when there’s a “big disaster.”

Speaking of incoherent campaign rhetoric, Zaun’s comment about flood relief at the March forum was part of his answer to a question about new financial regulations. After lamenting the lack of “personal responsibility” in this country, Zaun concluded, “there needs to be some changes with our banking system, but its not with more government red tape and I would not support that current bill [under consideration in Congress] that you’re talking about.” I would love to hear details about the banking system changes Zaun would support.

Getting back to flood recovery, I still wonder what Representative Steve King has against the federal flood insurance program. Unfortunately, property owners around Lake Delhi are unlikely to benefit from that program, because Delaware County had declined to participate.

UPDATE: Boswell’s campaign released this statement on July 27:

“It is unfortunate that Senator Zaun made such insensitive and out-of-touch comments, especially as Iowans are experiencing widespread flooding across the state for the second time in two years. He has a long record of repeatedly voting against helping Iowa’s families, small businesses, and farmers in the aftermath of the 2008 floods. Iowans pay taxes into their local, state, and federal governments with the expectation that when a disaster strikes their investment will pay off. They trust that they will have a place to go, someone to counsel them, and a way to rebuild their homes and businesses. After all, this is their tax dollars – their government. I know that my conscience would never allow me to stand idle as these families, small business owners, farmers, and communities suffer following a natural disaster. This November Iowans will have to choose whether they want to elect a representative that will stand by them in times of need and fight for their fair share of their tax dollars, or someone who turns his back on his constituents.”

President Obama is ready to sign a $34 billion bill to extend unemployment benefits to many out-of-work Americans after the U.S. Senate finally passed the bill last night and the House of Representatives followed suit today. Unemployment benefits for many Americans started running out in early June, but Senate Democrats failed in several attempts to overcome Republican filibusters of the measure. This week a cloture motion on the unemployment benefits bill finally passed 60-40, with Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine joining 58 Democrats to overcome a filibuster. (West Virginia now has a Democratic appointee filling Robert Byrd’s old seat; his long illness and death this summer had left Democrats one vote short of 60.)

Iowa’s Chuck Grassley joined the Republican filibuster again this week, and last night he voted no on the bill itself, which passed 59-39. Grassley’s office sent out this statement yesterday:

“There’s bipartisan consensus that Congress should extend unemployment insurance, but there’s no reason we can’t extend benefits and pay for it.  We’ve offered solutions, five separate times, on ways to pay, only to be rebuffed by the Democratic leadership.

“Iowans have told me time and time again that Congress must stop deficit spending, so I voted to extend unemployment insurance and pay for it.”

Give me a break. When we had a Republican president, Grassley never hesitated to vote for tax cuts for the wealthy, Medicare part D, or war supplemental funding bills that added to the deficit. In fact, under President George W. Bush the Republican-controlled Congress passed unemployment extensions without making sure the additional spending was “paid for.” Senator Tom Harkin got it right in his July 20 speech on the Senate floor:

“For far too long, the long-term unemployed have gone without the assistance they need because of political gamesmanship in the Senate.  Critics argue that we cannot help some of the most desperate workers in America if it adds a dime to the deficit, but in the next breath, they argue in favor of extending hundreds of billions of tax breaks for the most fortunate and privileged Americans was necessary.  Tell that to the working family in Iowa who, through no fault of their own, struggles with joblessness and cannot put food on the table.

“Some two and a half million unemployed Americans have seen their benefits terminated in recent weeks.  They are among the nearly 6.8 million Americans who have been out of work for more than half a year.  That’s the highest number of long-term unemployed we’ve had since we started keeping track in 1948.”  

The House approved the unemployment benefits extension by a vote of 272 to 152 (roll call). Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell all voted for the bill. Ten Democrats (mostly representing conservative districts) crossed the aisle to vote against the bill, and 31 House Republicans voted for it. That’s a surprisingly high number of Republicans going against their leadership. Iowa Republicans Tom Latham and Steve King stuck with the majority of their caucus. Not only do they lack compassion for some long-term unemployed Iowans whose benefits have run out, they apparently don’t understand that unemployment benefits are among the most stimulative forms of government spending.

It’s good news that benefits will be restored to millions of Americans in the coming weeks, but in other respects this bill falls short of what’s needed to address our long-term unemployment problem. Although the number of Americans out of work for at least six months is at its highest level in six decades, Congress still hasn’t done anything for people who have exhausted the full 99 weeks of eligibility for unemployment benefits. The House has approved more infrastructure spending and other measures that would create jobs, but for now the Senate seems unable to overcome GOP filibusters of further stimulus.

The National Republican Congressional Committee has put all three Iowa GOP Congressional challengers “on the radar,” the bottom rung of the three-tier Young Guns program. Challengers who appear better positioned to win may be bumped up later this year to “contender” or “young gun” status. Only the “young guns” are likely to get significant financial help from the NRCC.

If I were running Brad Zaun’s campaign, I’d start implementing “plan B,” assuming he’s on his own in his race against Representative Leonard Boswell. Iowa’s third district is rated “lean Democratic” by most analysts of the House races, while Iowa’s first and second districts are in the “safe Democratic” column. This spring the NRCC gave Zaun’s primary opponent Jim Gibbons “contender” status. Although the Iowa primary results were in a sense humiliating for the NRCC, I would have expected House Republican leaders to signal in some way that IA-03 (with a partisan voting index of D+1) is a more competitive district than IA-01 (D+5) or IA-02 (D+7). Instead, they give Zaun the same status as Bruce Braley’s challenger Ben Lange and Dave Loebsack’s repeat rival Mariannette Miller-Meeks.

Looking solely at fundraising numbers, which seems to be the NRCC’s main benchmark for candidates, Zaun belongs at the same level as Lange and Miller-Meeks. All three Republicans finished the second quarter with a little more than $100,000 cash on hand, and all face incumbents with much more money in the bank. Iowa politics-watchers generally consider Boswell more vulnerable than Loebsack or Braley, and on paper Zaun is a good candidate. He is an experienced campaigner and has a base in the population center of the district. However, it’s far from clear Zaun will have the resources he needs to be successful. Boswell’s campaign is about to hold its biggest fundraiser yet, featuring President Bill Clinton.

The tough reality for Zaun (and Lange and Miller-Meeks) is that the NRCC doesn’t have a bottomless pit of money to spend on every potentially competitive race. The latest FEC reports from party committees show the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee with $33.8 million cash on hand compared to just $17 million for the NRCC. That’s not even enough to make a serious play in the 40 districts where Republican challengers already have full “young gun” status. Even worse for Iowa’s Republicans, the 14 candidates who got “contender” status this week are also ahead of Zaun, Lange and Miller-Meeks in line for help from the NRCC.

I doubt the NRCC will play much of a role in Iowa until 2012, when at least one of our four newly-drawn Congressional districts may be highly competitive.

Share any thoughts about Iowa’s U.S. House races in this thread.

UPDATE: Get a load of the ridiculous spin from Zaun: “The NRCC has identified our race as a top 30 race in the country.” Sorry, no: there are 40 candidates in the top tier, where the best pickup opportunities lie. Then come the “contenders” (second tier), and finally Zaun and the rest of the “on the radar” bunch.

THURDSAY UPDATE: Reid Wilson of Hotline on Call reports that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is buying tv air time in 17 districts held by Democratic incumbents, including IA-03.

Candidates for federal offices were required to submit Federal Election Commission reports on campaign fundraising and expenditures by July 15. Those reports covered money raised and spent between May 20 and June 30. “Pre-primary” reports, which were due in late May, covered the period from April 1 through May 19.

The second quarter numbers are particularly important for challengers, who need to show that they will have the resources to wage serious district-wide or statewide campaigns. Although candidates continue to raise money during the third quarter, they typically have less time for fundraising as they spend more time campaigning. Mike Glover of the Associated Press noted, “The cash-on-hand numbers are closely watched by strategists because candidates traditionally use the summer months to build up a cash reserve that they begin spending on television advertisements around Labor Day.”

Follow me after the jump for the second quarter numbers.  

Jonathan Martin of the Politico made a splash in the blogosphere with this piece on former Iowa First Lady Christie Vilsack. She told Martin that she’s “really interested” in running for office someday:

She added: “I think I have all the ingredients, it’s really a matter of timing.”

When she’ll run-and what office she’ll pursue-is less certain, though Vilsack did drop some hints.

The former Iowa First Lady indicated she’d like to mount a campaign as soon as 2012.

“Everything will look different after this election when the state’s redistricted,” Vilsack said.

As for what she’ll run for, she suggested a congressional bid.

“I have more of a legislative personality,” she said.

Many central Iowa Democrats expect Vilsack to run for Congress in the redrawn third district in 2012. If Leonard Boswell wins an eighth term this November, he could easily retire before the next election. Democrats will certainly need a new candidate in IA-03 for the next cycle if Brad Zaun beats Boswell this year.

Ever since Vilsack became involved with the Iowa Initiative to Reduce Unintended Pregnancies (as opposed to Planned Parenthood, a more polarizing organization), I’ve assumed she would become a candidate someday. When Vilsack ruled out challenging Senator Chuck Grassley last fall, she indicated that she would consider a run for office.

Vilsack told Martin, “I want to make a wise choice because I’m very competitive. If I’m going to run, I’m not just going to run to run – I’m going to run to win.” She might not clear the field for a Democratic primary in IA-03, but she would have an excellent chance of winning the nomination. As first lady, she was quite popular, so her chances in a general election would probably be strong, depending on the makeup of the district. Few Iowa Democrats could go into their first campaign with her level of name recognition.

Some Democrats consider Vilsack a possible U.S. Senate candidate if Tom Harkin retires in 2014 or Grassley retires in 2016. My hunch is that Representative Bruce Braley or former Governor Tom Vilsack would be more likely Democratic candidates for a statewide race.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

I heard the rumor, Civic Skinny heard the rumor, and now The Iowa Republican blog reports that Dave Funk will soon be the Republican nominee for supervisor in Polk County’s third district.

The two Republican Polk County supervisors aren’t up for re-election this year, and the GOP isn’t fielding candidates against Democratic supervisors John Mauro and Angela Connolly. As a result, the third district race between Funk and two-term incumbent Tom Hockensmith will determine control of the five-member board of supervisors. Democrats have had a majority on that body for decades.

Without question, Funk is the best candidate Republicans could have recruited for this race. Two pictures tell that story after the jump.

Iowa county fair season is in full swing, and the Association of Iowa Fairs posts the schedule here. You may even run into some local candidates and elected officials.

The Sierra Club’s Iowa Chapter has nature hikes and other group outings scheduled around the state this summer. Click here to view the calendars for your area.

The Johnson County-based group Backyard Abundance provides advice and educational events for people who want to grow food in urban environments or want to transform their yards into a low-maintenance, eco-friendly landscape.  I’m a big fan of letting native Iowa plants take over your yard.

Democrats are out canvassing most weekends from here through the November election. Iowa Democratic candidates, please send me notices of your upcoming public events, fundraisers or volunteer opportunities if you would like me to include them on these calendars.

Details for some political and environmental events are after the jump. Please post a comment or e-mail me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com if you have something to add.

Seeing the announcement about Polk County Supervisor Tom Hockensmith’s picnic next weekend reminded me of the latest political rumor going around Des Moines: former third district Congressional candidate Dave Funk is expected to challenge Hockensmith in the next supervisor’s race. I’ve seen no public confirmation of the rumor, though.

The House of Representatives approved what’s likely to be the final version of financial reform yesterday, on a mostly party-line vote of 237 to 192 (roll call). Iowa Democrats Bruce Braley (IA-01), Dave Loebsack (IA-02) and Leonard Boswell (IA-03) voted for the compromise that emerged from a House-Senate conference committee. They had also voted for the original House version last December. Republicans Tom Latham (IA-04) and Steve King (IA-05) voted against the new regulations on the financial sector. The Senate will take up this bill after senators return from the July 4 recess on July 12.

I haven’t blogged much about financial reform because so many important provisions didn’t make it into the original House bill and/or were ditched during the Senate amendment process. Yesterday Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin blasted the “unholy alliance between Washington and Wall Street”:

I cosponsored a number of critical amendments during Senate consideration of the bill including a Cantwell-McCain amendment to restore Glass-Steagall safeguards, Senator Dorgan’s amendment that addressed the problem of “too big to fail” financial institutions, and another “too big to fail” reform offered by Senators Brown and Kaufman that proposed strict limits on the size of those institutions. Each of those amendments would have improved the bill significantly, and each of them either failed or was blocked from even getting a vote.

After that, it wasn’t a close call for me. It would be a huge mistake to pass a bill that purports to re-regulate the financial industry but is simply too weak to protect people from the recklessness of Wall Street. […]

Since the Senate bill passed, I have had a number of conversations with key members of the administration, Senate leadership and the conference committee that drafted the final bill. Unfortunately, not once has anyone suggested in those conversations the possibility of strengthening the bill to address my concerns and win my support. People want my vote, but they want it for a bill that, while including some positive provisions, has Wall Street’s fingerprints all over it.

In fact, reports indicate that the administration and conference leaders have gone to significant lengths to avoid making the bill stronger. Rather than discussing with me ways to strengthen the bill, for example, they chose to eliminate a levy that was to be imposed on the largest banks and hedge funds in order to obtain the vote of members who prefer a weaker bill. Nothing could be more revealing of the true position of those who are crafting this legislation. They had a choice between pursuing a weaker bill or a stronger one.

While we’re on the subject of those conference talks, which catered to a handful of New England Republicans, here’s a textbook case of Republicans negotiating in bad faith:

This week, Democrats sought to confirm the support of Sen. Scott Brown (R) of Massachusetts, who threatened to vote against the bill if it contained $19 billion in new fees on large banks and hedge funds. House and Senate conferees reconvened to remove that provision, but on Wednesday Senator Brown didn’t commit his vote. He said he plans to evaluate the bill over Congress’s week-long July 4 recess.

During the past few weeks David Waldman wrote an excellent series of posts on the conference process and mechanics. Political junkies should take a look, because this won’t be the last important bill hammered out by a conference committee.

As with health insurance reform, the Wall Street reform bill contains a bunch of good provisions. Chris Bowers lists many of them here. Representatives Braley, Loebsack and Boswell also highlighted steps forward in statements I have posted after the jump. On balance, it’s better for this bill to pass than for nothing to pass. But like health insurance reform, the Wall Street reform bill isn’t going to solve the big systemic problems it was supposed to solve. It’s disappointing that large Democratic majorities in Congress couldn’t produce a better bill than this one, and it’s yet another sign we need filibuster reform in the Senate.

Another parallel between health insurance reform and financial reform is that Republican talking points against it are dishonest.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

A friendly reminder to Iowa Democrats: candidates for federal offices face an important fundraising deadline tomorrow. If you are able, please consider donating to one of our Congressional candidates before midnight on June 30:

Roxanne Conlin for U.S. Senate

Bruce Braley for Congress (IA-01)

Dave Loebsack for Congress (IA-02)

Leonard Boswell for Congress (IA-03)

Bill Maske for Congress (IA-04)

Matt Campbell for Congress (IA-05)

This quarter I have donated to Conlin, Maske, Campbell and Boswell. I made my contribution to Boswell’s re-election campaign before he advocated for big telecom companies over the public interest on net neutrality. I probably won’t give him any more money, but he’s still a lot better than his Republican opponent, the not very well-informed Brad Zaun. The next FEC reports from Boswell and Zaun will be particularly important: a huge advantage for Boswell lengthens the odds of the cash-strapped National Republican Congressional Committee spending heavily for Zaun this fall. The NRCC simply does not have enough money to make a difference in every competitive U.S. House race.

Victory Enterprises, a consultant for Republican Brad Zaun’s Congressional campaign, conducted a poll showing Zaun leading incumbent Representative Leonard Boswell by 41 percent to 32 percent, with 27 percent undecided. The poll surveyed 400 “likely voters” in Iowa’s third district on June 17, producing a margin of error of plus or minus 4.9 percent. The Des Moines Register’s Kathie Obradovich noticed some unusual features of the sample:

One thing to note is the party distribution: More Democrats (43 percent) than Republicans (38 percent) but only 19 percent independents.  As of the most recent Secretary of State report on voter registration, Democrats make up 38 percent of registered voters in the 3rd District; Republicans, 30 percent and no-party, 32 percent.

The campaign screened to include voters with a history of participating in off-year general elections. That’s why there are fewer independents. The Zaun campaign says they’re not as faithful about voting in off-year elections as registered party members. So these poll results are likely to look different from polls that allow for more participation from independents. It also puts a premium on Polk County voters, which the campaign says is based on history but is also where Zaun is by far the strongest.

No-party voters are less likely to turn out for off-year elections, but 19 percent sounds low. In 2006, about 26 percent of general election voters in Iowa were independents. I don’t know what that figure was in IA-03. Boswell’s campaign manager, Grant Woodard, cast doubt on the poll’s reliability:

“Internal polls created by hired political consultants are almost always bogus.  This “poll” is highly suspect – 30.3 percent heard of him but have no opinion and another 18.3% have never heard of him and have no opinion whatsoever.  In other words if nearly 50 percent of the participants don’t have an opinion on Sen. Zaun how could they come to this conclusion?  It isn’t worth the paper it is written on.   Clearly this “poll” was cooked up in order for Sen. Zaun to jumpstart his notoriously tepid fundraising.   We understand the games that they are trying to play.”

Obradovich posted the Zaun campaign’s defense of the poll here.

I would love to see an independent survey on this race, but public polls of Congressional districts are hard to come by. Zaun was campaigning actively around IA-03 all spring, as he faced a competitive Republican primary, so he may have gotten a bump. Boswell hasn’t kicked his re-election bid into gear yet. When he starts spending his war chest, we’ll get a better sense of how worried he is about Zaun. If Boswell goes negative on Zaun early, instead of talking primarily about his own record, that’s a sign his own internal polling is not encouraging.

Oddly, I agree with Krusty on Zaun’s weaknesses going into the general:

In Zaun, Boswell will face a tenacious campaigner, but also someone that couldn’t raise much money and has a 20-year record to pick apart.

There is no doubt that Zaun will try to make this campaign about the bailouts, Obamacare, and all of that, but Boswell is going to make this race to make this about agriculture and rural issues.

Zaun’s primary opponents said little about his record beyond criticizing his vote for an anti-bullying bill. Boswell’s campaign will probably educate third district voters about other aspects of Zaun’s record as state senator and mayor of Urbandale.

Iowa Republicans love to bash Leonard Boswell as a “liberal,” but that label is laughable when you examine Boswell’s lifetime voting record in Congress. The Progressive Punch database shows that Boswell currently ranks as the 224th most progressive member of the House of Representatives (near the bottom of the Democratic caucus). Progressive Punch divides Congressional votes into 14 categories, and the highest ranking Bowell has in any category is 174th. In other words, Boswell is less progressive than the average House Democrat on just about any issue. On “crucial votes,” which are decided by a narrow margin in the House, Boswell has voted with progressives only about 65 percent of the time during his Congressional career. (Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack aren’t as liberal as you probably think they are either.)

Progressive Punch scores only take votes into account, but members of Congress can influence policies in other ways too. This week the Savetheinternet.com coalition sent out an action alert:

Seventy-four members of Congress have just signed an industry-drafted letter urging the FCC to abandon efforts to protect Net Neutrality and promote universal broadband access. By signing this letter, these members have sold you out to Comcast, Verizon and AT&T.

Click here to read the industry-drafted letter. The savetheinternet.com coalition annotated the letter with background countering many points of “misinformation.” All the House members who signed were Democrats, but Boswell is the only Iowa Democrat on the list. Major players in the telecommunications industry want to undermine the FCC’s authority, and the letter depicts that as needed to secure private investment in expanding broadband networks. Boswell may think he is merely helping his rural constituents get broadband access, but if corporations get their way on this matter, the likely outcome would be a framework allowing internet providers to charge content providers more to have their sites load.

Click here for more background on what net neutrality is and why some corporations want to undermine it. Excerpts:

Net Neutrality is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Net Neutrality means that Internet service providers may not discriminate between different kinds of content and applications online. It guarantees a level playing field for all Web sites and Internet technologies. […]

The nation’s largest telephone and cable companies — including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable — want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won’t load at all.

They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. And they want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking services offered by their competitors.

These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of a level playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services — or those of big corporations that can afford the steep tolls — and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road. […]

Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since its inception. […] And non-discrimination provisions like Net Neutrality have governed the nation’s communications networks since the 1920s.

But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications Commission, Net Neutrality — the foundation of the free and open Internet — was put in jeopardy. Now, cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.

Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about “deregulation,” the cable and phone giants don’t want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.

According to the Savetheinternet coalition, Boswell has accepted $53,500 in campaign contributions from telecom companies or their lobbyists during his Congressional career. Please take a moment to contact Boswell at one of his offices or through his official website to urge him to support the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458). You can also sign an online petition here.

UPDATE: At Iowa Independent, Adam Sullivan reports that in March, Boswell “held a dinner fundraiser hosted by Lyndon Boozer (a lobbyist for AT&T) and Roger Mott (a lobbyist for Verizon), and a breakfast fundraiser hosted by Louis Dupart (a lobbyist for Verizon).”

In December, the Obama administration signaled its intention to move some federal prisoners as well as detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Illinois, just across the Mississippi River from Clinton, Iowa.

However, on May 19 the House Armed Services Committee “unanimously approved a defense bill for 2011 that bans spending money to build or modify any facility inside the United States to house Guantánamo detainees,” the New York Times reported.

At TalkLeft, Jeralyn posted an excerpt from the bill summary:

The Committee firmly believes that the construction or modification of any facility in the U.S. to detain or imprison individuals currently being held at Guantanamo must be accompanied by a thorough and comprehensive plan that outlines the merits, costs, and risks associated with utilizing such a facility. No such plan has been presented to date. The bill prohibits the use of any funds for this purpose. Additionally, the bill requires the Secretary of Defense to present Congress with a report that adequately justifies any proposal to build or modify such a facility in the future.

Last fall prominent Iowa Republicans fanned fears about terrorists in the heartland as a political weapon against President Obama and Representative Bruce Braley, who represents the Iowa counties closest to Thomson, Illinois. At the time, Braley expressed support for the plan to convert the Illinois facility, saying his constituents “have told me with a resounding voice they want these jobs to come to their area.” Some jobs will almost certainly come to the area in 2011 or 2012, because the federal government still plans to purchase and renovate the Thomson Correctional Center to use for federal prisoners, with or without detainees from Guantanamo.

Iowa Democrats Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell are among the 61 members of the House Armed Services Committee. I don’t know whether they were present at Wednesday’s meeting, where the defense authorization bill passed by a 59 to 0 vote.

Jim Gibbons unveiled a new tv ad for his Congressional campaign today:

Rough transcript by me:

Male voice-over: Jim Gibbons’ values are hard work, honesty, and family. A champion wrestler, coach and financial adviser, he’s learned that listening to the voters is the most important part of being a leader in Congress. Above all, Jim Gibbons knows what’s important in life is being Annie’s husband and a great father to their three girls. It’s through their eyes Jim is running for Congress, to stop the out-of-control spending, cut taxes, and grow Iowa jobs. Jim Gibbons for Congress.

Gibbons voice: I’m Jim Gibbons, I approved this message.

Like Gibbons’ previous ad, this commercial has strong visuals and production values. The message seems generic to me, but in a crowded primary maybe it’s sufficient to build name recognition and favorable impressions of the candidate.

The Gibbons campaign has purchased “a significant buy of air-time to run this ad” and expects it to reach “a majority of voters” in the third Congressional district. My hunch is that this commercial will run on a broader range of programs than the traditional Iowa combination of local news and Wheel of Fortune. I suspect it will air on some programs with a predominantly female audience; to me this ad seems targeted toward women, whereas State Senator Brad Zaun’s ads seem very male-oriented, with a “tea party” edge. Perhaps Gibbons’ internal polling suggests there are more undecided women voters.

I got a kick out of this passage in Gibbons’ news release:

“This ad will be a great opportunity for me to reach the thousands of voters that will be going to the polls on June 8th.  I am running for Congress to reduce wasteful spending in Washington and grow jobs in Iowa,” said Jim Gibbons.  “I believe central Iowa needs a Congressman that will represent Iowa values, not Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco-style values.”

Keep bashing Nancy Pelosi and her San Francisco values, Republicans. Your “cookie-cutter” messaging just flopped in the special election in Pennsylvania’s 12th district. PA-12 should have been more winnable for Republicans than IA-03 for the reasons I discussed toward the end of this post.

Bleeding Heartland readers, what do you think of this commercial and the third district race?

P.S. Could some Republican English teacher please inform the Gibbons campaign about correct usage of “that” and “who”? (As in, the thousands of voters who will vote on June 8, and a member of Congress who will represent Iowa values.)