Yesterday all five Iowans in the U.S. House helped pass a bill that extends funding for federal transportation programs through September and requires approval of the Keystone XL pipeline project. The vote will lead to conference committee negotiations over a long-term authorization of the Highway Trust Fund and other programs.

Follow me after the jump for more on yesterday’s House vote and other transportation policy news. Younger Americans are increasingly choosing to get around without a car where alternatives to driving are available.

President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign accuses Republican front-runner Mitt Romney of standing with Big Oil in a new television commercial running in Iowa, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Virginia. The video and transcript of the Obama campaign’s second ad in Iowa are after the jump. It’s a direct response to an anti-Obama spot about high gasoline prices, which is now running in Iowa and other swing states.

The Obama campaign’s first television commercial in Iowa and other swing states focused on energy policy and criticized the “secretive oil billionaires attacking President Obama.”  

Groups opposing and supporting President Barack Obama’s re-election are making high gas prices the focal point of new television commercials in Iowa and other swing states. Videos and transcripts of the latest ads by the American Energy Alliance and Priorities USA are after the jump.

Last week Obama urged Congress to end tax breaks for oil companies, citing the industry’s high profits. U.S. Senate Republicans filibustered a bill that would have ended several deductions for five major oil companies and extended various renewable energy tax incentives. Senator Tom Harkin voted to move forward with that bill, but Senator Chuck Grassley voted to block it, as he did with similar legislation in May 2011.

Most bills that lack bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate die by filibuster, but senators voted overwhelmingly yesterday to move forward with debate on a bill that would end tax breaks for oil companies.  

The U.S. Senate approved a new transportation authorization bill on March 14. Iowa’s senators Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin were both part of the 74 to 22 majority supporting the highway bill, officially called MAP-21. Republicans cast all of the no votes. In today’s polarized Senate, 74 votes looks like an overwhelming mandate, but it’s worth noting that even larger bipartisan majorities approved the four previous transportation authorization bills from 1987, 1991, 1998, and 2005.

Before final passage of MAP-21, senators voted on numerous amendments. Some were related to transportation policy, while other “non-germane” proposals were considered as part of a deal to avoid a Republican filibuster. Bleeding Heartland covered how Grassley and Harkin voted on the first batch of amendments here. Follow me after the jump for details on the rest of the Senate debate over the transportation bill. Iowa’s senators were on opposite sides most of the time.

Governor Terry Branstad and Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller both joined a brief filed today by seven Midwestern states that oppose California’s Low Carbon-Fuel Standard. Branstad was eager to “take a stand for Iowa farmers against [an] unconstitutional California law,” as a press release put it.

It’s not every day that a governor who has praised strict constructionists and “the philosophy of judicial restraint” cheers for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to keep an injunction on (and eventually strike down) a state law.

High gasoline prices are the focus of the first radio ad for John Archer, one of the Republicans running against Representative Dave Loebsack in Iowa’s second Congressional district. Follow me after the jump for the ad script and some fact-checking.

All federal transportation programs are at risk of shutting down if Congress does not pass a new authorization bill by March 31.  House Speaker John Boehner has failed to find 218 votes in his chamber for his preferred five-year highway bill. Last month the House passed the first part of Boehner’s three-pronged approach, expanding offshore oil drilling as a way to fund federal transportation programs. However, many House conservatives believe the rest of Boehner’s bill is too expensive, and the lack of earmarks gives members nothing to sell in their districts. Yesterday Boehner told reporters that he plans to “see what the Senate can produce and to bring their bill up” in the House.

Boehner’s failure put the ball in the Senate’s court. In theory, passing a transportation bill should be straightforward, because portions of the bill already passed Senate committees with unanimous bipartisan support. But for the past month the Senate has been bogged down in disputes over how many amendments will be voted on when the chamber takes up the highway bill on the floor. This week the Senate moved toward resolution; after the jump I discuss how Iowa’s two senators voted on key procedural motions and amendments related to the transportation bill.

Christie Vilsack toured Iowa’s new fourth Congressional district late last week to roll out an energy plan “geared towards bringing a new prosperity to Iowa’s small cities and rural communities by creating layers of economic opportunity.”

The five-point plan is more of a political statement than a detailed policy document. Like some of Vilsack’s previous proposals, it embraces some Republican talking points.

Upon closer examination, the energy plan looks like two parts bipartisan no-brainers, two parts conservative buzzwords, and one part fairy dust.

The U.S. House approved a bill last night that would encourage more offshore oil drilling and force the Obama administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Although Leonard Boswell (IA-03) has talked about getting tough on oil companies for the past year, he was one of 21 House Democrats who joined most Republicans in supporting the “drill here, drill now” crowd’s wish list.  

President Barack Obama is making economic fairness a central theme of tonight’s State of the Union address. To bolster his proposals to increase tax rates on some forms of unearned income, billionaire investor Warren Buffett’s secretary will be one of First Lady Michelle Obama’s guests. A few excerpts from the prepared speech are after the jump, along with some White House “talking points” for allies. I’ll update this post later.

This thread is for any comments about the president’s speech or the Republican response, to be delivered by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels.

UPDATE: Added the text of Daniels’ response below, along with some thoughts about the president’s speech and reaction from members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation.

President Barack Obama announced today that his administration is rejecting the application for the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would take oil sands from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf Coast of the U.S. In a statement I’ve posted after the jump, the president blamed Congressional Republicans, who attached a “rushed and arbitrary deadline” for the Keystone decision to the temporary payroll tax cut extension bill in December.

Obama’s decision takes the pipeline off the table for now. House Republicans may look for ways to override the administration’s decision, but the Democratic-controlled Senate is unlikely to approve such legislation this year. However, all bets are off after the 2012 elections. TransCanada may resubmit its application after finding a different route through Nebraska.  

By this summer, I predict that “Keystone” will be a household word in the U.S., as Republicans and corporate-funded groups blame Obama’s decision for rising gasoline prices and continued high unemployment. Environmental groups that have opposed the pipeline have a huge public education task on their hands.

UPDATE: I’ve added Representative Steve King’s reaction after the jump.

Both Republican Chuck Grassley and Democrat Tom Harkin voted Saturday morning for a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits.

Seven Republican candidates take the stage tonight as Fox News and the Iowa GOP co-host a presidential debate in Sioux City. I’ll be live-blogging after the jump, where I’ve also posted some recent news about the race in Iowa.

UPDATE: Scroll down for the live-blog.

Only ten Democrats in the U.S. House supported a bill approved last night to extend the payroll tax cut and some unemployment benefits. All three Iowa Democrats crossed party lines to vote for this legislation, which has drawn a rare veto threat from the White House.

UPDATE: Scroll down for Representative Dave Loebsack’s statement on this vote.

SECOND UPDATE: I’ve added a statement from Representative Steve King.

Libyan forces captured and killed Colonel Moammar Gadhafi today in the former dictator’s hometown of Sirte. Representative Bruce Braley (D, IA-01) welcomed news of the “victory for freedom-loving people” but added that “With Gadhafi out of the picture, it’s time for US involvement in Libya to end.” Braley has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s open-ended intervention in Libya. He has voted against authorizing military action there and repeatedly demanded a cost accounting of our mission.

Representative Dave Loebsack (D, IA-02) reacted to today’s news with a statement calling on “international organizations to step forward and help the Libyan people” so that the U.S. can “focus on creating jobs here at home.” Loebsack sits on the House Armed Services Committee but has generally avoided commenting on the U.S. mission in Libya. In June, he voted against authorizing the intervention but also against defunding it.

The full statements from Braley and Loebsack are after the jump. I will update this post if other members of Iowa’s Congressional delegation comment on today’s events. UPDATE: Added reaction from Leonard Boswell (D, IA-03) and Steve King (R, IA-05). King and Boswell supported authorizing the Libya intervention. King was one of only five House members to vote against barring federal funding for U.S. ground troops in Libya.

SECOND UPDATE: Comments from Tom Latham (R, IA-04) and Senator Chuck Grassley are below.

A bill to expand offshore drilling for oil failed to advance in the U.S. Senate yesterday. Iowa’s Chuck Grassley was among 42 Republicans who voted to proceed with considering the Offshore Production and Safety Act of 2011 (roll call). Five Republicans joined every Democrat present, including Tom Harkin, in voting against the motion, which needed 60 votes to pass.

This bill was written as the Republican way to address high gasoline prices, in contrast with Democratic efforts to repeal oil company tax breaks. Although oil market experts agree that more drilling in the outer shelf won’t affect prices at the pump, I am surprised that no Senate Democrats backed yesterday’s motion to proceed. When the House of Representatives approved a different offshore drilling bill two weeks ago, a large chunk of the Democratic caucus (including Iowa’s Leonard Boswell) voted with Republicans.

In other Senate news, Grassley hasn’t announced how he will vote on House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan’s budget: “[Grassley] said the burden is on Senate Democrats to explain why they haven’t introduced their own alternative budget.” I would be shocked if Grassley voted against Ryan’s plan. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell isn’t whipping his colleagues to vote for the legislation, probably because Democrats plan to make proposed Medicare reforms the centerpiece of the 2012 election campaign. But Grassley doesn’t have to worry about being re-elected.

A Republican-led filibuster blocked Senate consideration today of a bill that would end “tax breaks for the five largest oil companies: Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron.” Click here for more detail on tax breaks that would be eliminated. The 52 to 48 vote in favor of proceeding with the “Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act” failed because 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster. The roll call shows that Iowa’s Chuck Grassley voted against the motion to proceed, as did all but two Senate Republicans. Tom Harkin voted for considering the bill, as did all but three Democrats.

I’m all for ending oil company subsidies, but this bill was about optics rather than good energy policy. Andrew Restuccia wrote in The Hill,

Democrats’ pledge to continue pushing the bill signals that they view the effort as a winning political issue amid $4-a-gallon gas, soaring oil company profits and growing concern about the deficit. […]

Democrats say the bill would save $21 billion over the course of 10 years, savings that can be used to reduce the deficit at a time of increased belt-tightening.

Those talking points would be more convincing if party leaders had genuinely tried to end oil subsidies when Democrats controlled the U.S. House and had close to 60 votes in the Senate. It also makes no sense to focus this bill on the biggest oil companies, rather than the sector as a whole. Democrats apparently wrote the bill that way because of those companies’ large profits in the first quarter of this year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told journalists today that he will press for ending oil companies’ tax breaks as part of legislation on raising the debt ceiling. The U.S. hit its current debt ceiling yesterday and won’t be able to pay all its bills if Congress does not act to raise the ceiling by August 2. I believe President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats are playing a losing game by making budget negotiations part of a deal on raising the debt ceiling. When it was time to raise the government’s borrowing limit in 1995, President Bill Clinton wisely refused to let Republicans use the occasion to “backdoor their budget proposals.”

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: After the jump I’ve added a statement Grassley released on May 17, calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to approve the proposed Keystone XL Canadian pipeline project. Grassley depicts that project as a way for the Obama administration to help reduce the cost of gasoline. But an analysis commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy earlier this year suggested that building this pipeline might cause oil and therefore gasoline prices to rise in the Midwest. Environmental groups have raised many objections to the Keystone XL project as well.

SECOND UPDATE: I’ve also added below excerpts from a report by the Congressional Research Service on “the extent to which proposed tax changes on the oil industry are likely to affect domestic gasoline prices.” The report briefly explains the five tax breaks that would be repealed under the bill senators filibustered.

Last week, Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03) brought up the need to end oil subsidies repeatedly during an Iowa Public Television appearance. This week, Boswell and other House Democrats requested “a full House Agriculture Committee hearing and investigation into the relationship between rising oil prices and Wall Street speculators.” So I was surprised to see Boswell vote for an offshore drilling bill the House approved on May 5.

Details on yesterday’s votes and Boswell’s recent statements on oil policy are after the jump.

If the “energy package” about to emerge in the Senate looks anything like what Kate Sheppard is hearing, Senate Democrats should be ashamed. I threw in the towel on the climate bill a long time ago, because it was clear no serious attempt to address global warming could gain 60 votes in the Senate. Still, I thought some decent provisions might survive in a scaled-back energy bill.

Not so, according to Sheppard, who’s among the best reporters covering climate legislation. Sources from “several Senate offices” told her what’s likely to be in the new bill, and what will be conspicuously absent:

Obviously, there’s no carbon cap, that much we already knew. But there’s also no other major energy efficiency standards, and, perhaps most importantly, no renewable electricity standard -not even the weak one included in the energy bill last year. […]

Senate aides hoping to put a positive spin on the package note that it at least does not include any of the really bad measures that progressive senators were worried about, including major incentives for coal and nuclear power and the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

Are we supposed to be impressed that the largest Democratic Senate majority in decades won’t press ahead with “really bad measures” for the environment?

For all of President Barack Obama’s talk about our clean energy future, we won’t even get a renewable electricity standard to boost wind and solar production. We won’t get new energy efficiency standards, even though reducing demand for electricity tends to be faster and cheaper than building new facilities to generate electricity.

The American Wind Energy Association put out an action alert urging people to contact their senators demanding a renewable electricity standard in the energy bill. If you are so inclined, you can contact your senators through this page. I will contact the offices of Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley, although doing so probably won’t accomplish anything.

This disgrace gives me yet another reason not to donate to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the future. I don’t plan to waste my money or volunteer time on Organizing for America either. Obama failed to use his bully pulpit to produce a good climate bill and made stupid concessions to polluting industries along the way. He’s so afraid of losing a legislative battle that he didn’t even fight the good fight. But when he signs this worthless energy bill, he’ll probably declare victory in a very inspiring speech.

UPDATE: How pathetic–a White House official provides a blind quote to Politico blaming environmental groups for the Senate’s failure to pass a broad climate bill:

“They didn’t deliver a single Republican,” the official told POLITICO. “They spent like $100 million and they weren’t able to get a single Republican convert on the bill.”

Poor Mr. President. He could have delivered on one of his major campaign promises if the environmentalists hadn’t let him down.

SECOND UPDATE: I couldn’t agree more with Transportation 4 America: “With the Senate backing down on a real climate bill, it’s more important than ever that next transport bill helps make climate progress.”

Yesterday, the NRDC Action Fund launched a campaign featuring a powerful new ad by renowned environmental activist and celebrated actor, Edward James Olmos. In the video, which you can view here, Olmos explains what makes people – himself included – “locos” when it comes to U.S. energy and environmental policy. Now, as the Senate moves towards a possible debate on energy and climate legislation, we need to let everyone hear Olmos' message.

Hi, I'm Edward James Olmos. They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I guess that's what makes Americans “locos.” We keep yelling “drill baby drill” and expecting things to turn out ok. But the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is nothing new. The oil industry has been poisoning our oceans and wilderness for decades. It's time to regain our sanity. America doesn't want more oil disasters. We need safe, clean and renewable energy now. Think about it.

Sadly, Olmos' definition of “insanity” is exactly what we've been doing for decades in this country — maintaining policies that keep us “addicted” to fossil fuels instead of moving towards a clean, prosperous, and sustainable economy.

As we all know, dirty, outdated energy sources have caused serious harm to our economy, to our national security, and of course – as the horrible Gulf oil disaster illustrates – to our environment. In 2008 alone, the U.S. spent nearly $400 billion, about half the entire U.S. trade deficit, importing foreign oil. Even worse, much of that $400 billion went to countries (and non-state actors) that don't have our best interests at heart.

As if all that's not bad enough, our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels also has resulted in tremendous environmental devastation, ranging from melting polar ice caps to record heat waves to oil-covered pelicans and dolphins in the Gulf of Mexico.

As Edward James Olmos says, it's enough to drive us all “locos.”

Fortunately, there's a better way.

If you believe, as we passionately do, that it's time to kick our addiction to the dirty fuels of the past, then please help us get that message out there. Help us air Edward James Olmos' ad on TV in states with U.S. Senators who we believe can be persuaded to vote for comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. If we can convince our politicians to do their jobs and to pass comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation this year, we will be on a path to a brighter, healthier future.

Thank you for your support.

NRDC Action Fund

Democratic candidate for Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Francis Thicke is touring the state to talk about his just-published book, “A New Vision for Food and Agriculture.” He’s scheduled to speak in Oskaloosa on June 29, Marion on June 30, Storm Lake on July 1, Dubuque on July 6 and Mason City on July 13. All events are at 6:30 pm; click here for location details.

Thicke provides a brief outline of his vision on his campaign website:

   * Encourage the installation of farmer-owned, mid-size wind turbines on farms all across Iowa, to power farms, and help to power the rest of Iowa. I will lead in advocating feed-in tariffs, which are agreements with power companies that will allow farmers to sell their excess power, finance their turbines, and make a profit from their power generation.

   * Make Iowa farms more energy self-sufficient and put more biofuel profits in farmers’ pockets by refocusing Iowa’s biofuel investment on new technologies that will allow farmers to produce biofuels on the farm to power farm equipment, and sell the excess for consumer use.

   * Create more jobs and economic development by supporting local food production. We can grow more of what we eat in Iowa. Locally-grown food can be fresher, safer and healthier for consumers, and will provide jobs to produce it. I will reestablish the Iowa Food Policy Council to provide guidance on how to connect farmers to state institutional food purchases and greater access to consumer demand for fresh, locally-grown produce.

   * Expose predatory practices by corporate monopolies. We need Teddy Roosevelt-style trust busting to restore competition to agricultural markets. I will work with Iowa’s Attorney General and the Justice Department to ensure fair treatment for farmers.

   * Reestablish local control over CAFOs, and regulate them to keep dangerous pollutants out of our air and water, and protect the health, quality of life, and property values of our citizens.

   * Promote wider use of perennial and cover crops to keep Iowa’s rich soils and fertilizer nutrients from washing into our rivers.

Not only is Thicke highly qualified to implement this vision, he walks the walk, as you can see from a brief video tour of his dairy farm.

Near the beginning of that clip, Thicke observes, “Energy is a big issue in agriculture. We are highly dependent upon cheap oil if you look at agriculture almost anywhere in this country. And that’s one of the big issues in my campaign: how we can make agriculture more energy self-sufficient, make our landscape more resilient, and make our agriculture more efficient as well.” It’s sad that our current secretary of agriculture has shown no leadership on making this state’s farm economy more self-sufficient. Using renewable energy to power Iowa farm operations isn’t pie in the sky stuff: it’s technologically feasible and is a “common-sense way” to cut input costs.

I highly recommend going to hear Thicke speak in person, but you can listen online in some of the videos available on Thicke’s YouTube channel. The campaign is on Facebook here and on the web at Thickeforagriculture.com. If you want to volunteer for or help his campaign in any way, e-mail Thicketeam AT gmail.com. Here’s his ActBlue page for those who can make a financial contribution.

Oil from BP’s blown-out Deepwater Horizon well continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico and will do so until August at the earliest. In response, the Obama administration extended a moratorium on deepwater drilling for six months last week. However, the president also “quietly allowed a three-week-old ban on drilling in shallow water to expire” last week (hat tip Open Left). As a result,

Federal regulators approved Wednesday the first new Gulf of Mexico oil well since President Barack Obama lifted a brief ban on drilling in shallow water, even while deepwater projects remain frozen after the massive BP spill.

The Minerals Management Service granted a new drilling permit sought by Bandon Oil and Gas for a site about 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana and 115 feet below the ocean’s surface. It’s south of Rockefeller State Wildlife Refuge and Game Preserve, far to the west of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that triggered the BP spill.

Chris Bowers put it mildly when he described the Obama administration’s action here as “difficult to fathom.” The president gave a speech on the economy today and talked about investing in alternative energy, but like all my parenting books say, actions speak louder than words. The greatest environmental disaster in U.S. history is unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico, and BP doesn’t know how to stop it, but it’s business as usual at the Minerals Management Service. Nor is today’s permit approval an isolated case:

In the days since President Obama announced a moratorium on permits for drilling new offshore oil wells and a halt to a controversial type of environmental waiver that was given to the Deepwater Horizon rig, at least seven new permits for various types of drilling and five environmental waivers have been granted, according to records.

The records also indicate that since the April 20 explosion on the rig, federal regulators have granted at least 19 environmental waivers for gulf drilling projects and at least 17 drilling permits, most of which were for types of work like that on the Deepwater Horizon shortly before it exploded, pouring a ceaseless current of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Words fail me, so you’ll have to share your thoughts in this thread.

UPDATE: In 1979 it took nine months to stop oil gushing from a shallow well in the Gulf of Mexico.

I am sitting here watching CNN,  Sanjay Gupta is on AC360, and they have announced that the people working on that drilling rig that is leaking thousands of gallons of oil a day?  The big fear is that the entire drilling system and pipes may break off,  and then there will be no way of stopping the millions of gallons of oil from gushing out.  I am just sick at heart.  This is precisely why so many people did not want offshore drilling.  They have proven in Valdez, AK that even after years and years,  they still see the results of the oil there.  What would millions of gallons of oil do to the wildlife preserves and coastline? 

We have other options.  Wyoming,  western Colorado, Montana, etc.  love to have large companies come in and drill.  They drill for oil, they crack the shale for natural gas, the towns and schools are happy for the jobs, incomes, and businesses.  Of course,  the sewage system, the schools, etc.  need some time to adapt. But I grew up in Colorado, I have seen the boom for oil and gas in Colorado.  We can begin to switch vehicles to CNG,  we have LPG, drill for oil in Texas and the northern states.  We need to leave ANWR alone and drill out in the vast plains where the population is very low and towns and businesses are happy to have them.  We have wind towers in Iowa,  hemp is great for cloth and rope.  But all of that leftover hemp plant?  Great for ethanol.  Its time to start the switch away from oil.  Brazil has done it.  It took about 20 years, but they are completely off of foreign oil. 

Anyway, I am just sick at heart.  There is not enough Dawn in the world to treat every bird, the shorelines, the oyster beds, shrimp beds, etc. 

A few weeks ago, President Barack Obama advocated expanding offshore oil drilling in a misguided attempt to reach out to Republicans on energy legislation. The president told a town-hall meeting audience on April 2, “It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.” Think Progress exposed the inaccuracies in the president’s comments at the time, and the April 20 explosion at British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig was a tragic reminder of how much can go wrong with offshore drilling. Eleven workers were killed in the accident, and the resulting oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico still has not been contained. If it hits the Gulf Coast, the environmental and economic damage will be immense.

Last week, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs insisted that the tragedy had not given the president second thoughts about offshore drilling:

Obama still believes that “we have to have a comprehensive solution to our energy problems,” and the spill did not open up new questions about his drilling plan, [Gibbs] said. […]

“We need the increased production. The president still continues to believe the great majority of that can be done safely, securely and without any harm to the environment,” he said.

However, presidential adviser David Axelrod announced on ABC’s Good Morning America program today that

there’s a moratorium on the expansion until the recent spill can be controlled and investigated.

“No additional drilling has been authorized and none will until we find out what happened here,” he said.

Mike Lillis is absolutely right:

For the White House, the timing of the spill couldn’t have been worse. If Obama had stuck with his guns in opposing new drilling, he’d be seen as a prophet in the wake of this week’s Gulf disaster. Instead, by trying to make concessions to Republicans – most of whom won’t support a climate bill in any event – he’s simply alienated his conservation-minded supporters to no tangible benefit.

Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, says that any climate change bill including more offshore drilling will be “dead on arrival” in Congress. Let’s hope that message will resonates with the president. I also hope the administration will follow through on promises to make BP pay the full cost of cleaning up the oil spill.

On a related note, Mike Soraghan reports in the New York Times that BP “joined with other oil companies last year to oppose stricter safety and environmental rules” for oil rigs. I’m not surprised, and I’m not optimistic that the current disaster will lead to significantly stronger regulations on existing rigs.

UPDATE: I posted the Sierra Club’s statement after the jump. It’s worth a read.

As you probably heard yesterday, President Barack Obama announced plans to expand drilling for oil off the Atlantic coast of the U.S.. Not only that, he insulted environmental advocates and their “tired” arguments against drilling.

I have nothing profound to say about this decision, but when even a big Obama fan like Oliver Willis says the administration “Clearly Took Stupid Pills Today,” that ought to tell you something. Increasing our offshore extraction of oil won’t reduce our reliance on imports from the Middle East, and Obama knows it won’t. This is just a political ploy to win some votes in the Senate while making the president look like he holds the reasonable middle ground.

Once again, Obama makes a big concession to the corporate/Republican position at the beginning of the negotiating process, without gaining anything concrete in return. A good negotiator would make that kind of concession to close the deal, and only in exchange for something significant (like a hugely ambitious renewable electricity standard).

The Senate energy bill (let’s not even pretend it’s a “climate change” bill anymore) will probably allow more offshore drilling that the president announced, and that will probably be fine with the White House. Environmentalists will be asked to clap louder at “progress” or be grateful that Obama didn’t sell us out in a more egregious way.

I am tired of having to fight this kind of battle when the Democrats control Washington. It’s another reason I probably will never again give to Democratic committees at the levels I did from 2004 through 2007.

UPDATE: I recommend reading this post at EnviroKnow: “Dems More Trusted on Energy than Any Other Issue, Yet they Continue Pursuing Polluter-Friendly GOP Ideas.”

Contact: Julian Boggs | 859.358.2980 | jboggs@environmentiowa.org

Des Moines, IA—Increasing America’s use of plug-in electric and plug-in hybrid cars would dramatically reduce emissions that cause global warming and air pollution and would curb dependence on oil, according to a new white paper released today by Environment Iowa.

“With more Americans focused on the environmental and economic consequences of our oil dependence, carmakers are scrambling to offer customers the cleanest, most fuel efficient cars”, said Environment Iowa Federal Field Associate Julian Boggs.  “Dramatically ramping up electric vehicles can bolster America’s efforts to wean ourselves off of oil and to reduce pollution that causes global warming.” 

Plug-in vehicles are being profiled in an unprecedented way at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit this week. A “plug-in” car is one that can be recharged from the electric grid. Some plug-in cars run on electricity alone, while others are paired with small gasoline engines to create  plug-in hybrids. Many plug-in hybrids can get over 100 miles per gallon, while plug-in electric vehicles consume no gasoline at all.   Plug-in vehicles produce no direct tailpipe pollution when operating on electricity and there is already a vast electric power infrastructure to fuel them.   As renewable energy sources, like wind and solar, meet a larger share of our electricity needs, electric cars could contribute to little or no air pollution. 

Last year at this time I was scrambling to make as many phone calls and knock on as many doors as I could before the Iowa caucuses on January 3.

This week I had a little more time to reflect on the year that just ended.

After the jump I’ve linked to Bleeding Heartland highlights in 2008. Most of the links relate to Iowa politics, but some also covered issues or strategy of national importance.

I only linked to a few posts about the presidential race. I’ll do a review of Bleeding Heartland’s 2008 presidential election coverage later this month.

You can use the search engine on the left side of the screen to look for past Bleeding Heartland diaries about any person or issue.

Or does Sarah Palin sound like a high-school student using big words to fake her way through a college interview?

Remember, this is supposed to be her strong area. According to John McCain, Palin “knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America.”

When you think of the competent Republican women (like former New Jersey Governor Christie Whitman or Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas) whom McCain passed over to pick Palin, it is quite amazing.

John McCain and Sarah Palin will hold a rally at the Eastern Iowa Airport outside Cedar Rapids this morning at 10:00 am.

Somehow I doubt they will address any of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius’s five questions for McCain.

Apparently the Q&A didn’t go too well at a McCain/Palin town hall meeting yesterday:

Asked for “specific skills” she could cite to rebut critics who question her grasp of international affairs, she replied, “I am prepared.”

“I have that confidence. I have that readiness,” Palin said. “And if you want specifics with specific policies or countries, you can go ahead and ask me. You can play ‘stump the candidate’ if you want to. But we are ready to serve.”

GOP presidential nominee John McCain stepped in, pointing out that as governor of a state that is oil and gas plentiful, Palin was familiar with energy. She knows it to be “one of our great national security challenges,” he said.

He also cited her nearly two years as commander of Alaska’s National Guard. “I believe she is absolutely, totally qualified to address every challenge as the next vice president of the United States,” McCain said.

McCain frequently says Palin knows more about energy than anyone else in America, even though she has falsely claimed many times that Alaska provides 20 percent of the energy produced in the U.S. In fact, Alaska doesn’t even provide 20 percent of U.S. oil.

This is an open thread for discussing the Cedar Rapids rally or any other McCain/Palin related news.

UPDATE: The Des Moines Register is carrying the live video here.

After the jump you can read a statement from Jan Laue, Executive Vice-President of the Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO.

SECOND UPDATE: I only caught bits and pieces, but apparently McCain and Palin were hammering Joe Biden for supposedly saying that raising taxes is patriotic. Not surprisingly, they distort what he really said, which is that it would be patriotic for the wealthiest Americans to do their part by paying more taxes:

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people,” Biden said in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: “It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

On a trivial note, I was pretty sure I heard the Boy Scout leader or whoever he was flub the Pledge of Allegiance toward the beginning of the rally (I think he said “one nation, under God, individual”). If that happened at an Obama rally it would be the day’s top scandal on right-wing talk radio: Democrats don’t know the pledge!!

I’ve never understood why Republicans think this country is worth dying for, but it’s not worth raising taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent.

THIRD UPDATE: I highly recommend John Deeth’s liveblog of this event, which includes lots of photos.

I also enjoyed Radio Iowa’s write-up, especially this passage:

I look up, about five minutes into McCain’s address and see a steady stream of people walking out of the rally.  They just came to see Palin apparently.

On September 16, the House of Representatives approved the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act. The vote split 236 to 189, mostly along partisan lines. Iowa Representatives Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell all voted with the Democratic majority in favor of the bill. Tom Latham and Steve King voted with most Republicans against the bill.

You can read the bill summary here.

In essence, this legislation was designed to give Democrats cover on the offshore oil drilling issue. The Democratic majority caved by allowing for more drilling between 50 and 100 miles of the shore. This will do nothing to reduce our reliance on foreign oil or lower the cost of gas, but it will give Democratic incumbents a response as Republican candidates hammer them on how we need to “drill here, drill now.”

To give Democrats cover for caving on offshore drilling, the bill also contains lots of good things, like renewed tax credits for wind and solar power, more investment in public transportation, better energy-efficiency standards, a federal renewable electricity standard (which would require 15 percent of electricity generated in the U.S. to come from renewable sources by 2020). In addition, it would end tax subsidies for large oil and gas companies and ban the export of Alaskan oil.

The Oil Drum blog noted,

It is not too surprising that the oil and gas industry is not in favor of the legislation. The legislation provides for a whole host of benefits, and a big piece of the cost would be paid for by new taxes on oil and gas companies. The off-shore drilling provision could best be described as window dressing.

Unfortunately, these benefits will not happen, because Republicans don’t need to pass a compromise energy bill in order to clear the way for more offshore drilling.

They can just wait for the current ban on offshore drilling to expire on September 30. In past years, Democrats in Congress have fought to extend the ban on offshore drilling, but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew she did not have the votes to accomplish that this year. So, the bill will die in the Senate:

The bill faces a very uncertain future. The Senate is set to take up three separate energy bills, which differ sharply from the House measure. The White House issued a veto threat Tuesday, saying the House bill “purports to open access to American energy sources while in reality taking actions to stifle development.”

Senate Republicans may choose to block action on any energy bill and allow the moratorium to expire on Sept. 30. If the drilling ban lapses, the Bush administration could begin the process of preparing oil and gas lease sales in new areas as close as 3 miles offshore.

Pelosi and others talked about their big victory in getting this bill through the House, but that so-called victory won’t amount to much besides allowing Democratic incumbents to tell constituents they voted for offshore drilling.

The hypocrisy of Republicans on this issue is even worse.

Remember when a bunch of House Republicans demanded a special Congressional session this summer to deal with energy policy? Remember when Republican delegates to the GOP national convention chanted, “Drill, baby, drill!”

The Republican majority proved that they are not in favor of a comprehensive energy policy that would reduce oil consumption, promote renewable energy, and take tax breaks away from companies posting record profits this year.

Not only that, some Republicans tried to pass a motion to adjourn to block passage of this bill.

I totally agree with this statement from Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope:

Today, Republicans in the House were given a chance to pull America out of its energy crisis, and they refused. Majority leadership reached across the aisle to offer a package that includes both clean energy provisions and expanded offshore drilling. But supporters of Big Oil dug their heels in, refusing to support a truly comprehensive energy package because it did not do enough to help the oil industry and instead attempted a stunt to force a drill-only approach.

If House Republicans were honestly interested in clean energy, consumer protection, or a crackdown on ethics at federal agencies, they would have supported this package wholeheartedly. Instead, they fought it, proving beyond a doubt that their single, narrow aim is to increase profits for the oil industry.

For months, they have held up clean energy legislation, instead calling for a drill-only policy which will do nothing to lower gas prices, protect consumers, or solve our energy crisis. They have continued to demand that we open more of our nation’s coasts and public lands to drilling, which will lock us into a future of dependence on oil. They have maneuvered to undermine any bill that doesn’t put the oil industry first and hardworking Americans last.

With their latest failed trick, many Republicans in the House confirmed without a doubt that they will not be satisfied until the oil industry has an even tighter grip on our economy.

The full text of Pope’s statement is after the jump.

Though I find this whole episode depressing, it should motivate us to elect Barack Obama and more and better Democrats to Congress. Doing so won’t necessarily bring us a perfect energy policy, but we will certainly see some improvement on the charade we have now.

Senator Chuck Grassley has four town-hall meetings schedule for this Monday:

   * Monday August 25, 9:15-10:15 AM: Buchanan County Courthouse Assembly Room – 210 5th Avenue NE, Independence 50644

   * Monday August 25, 11:15-12:15 AM: Hudson Public Library – 401 5th Street, Hudson 50643

   * Monday August 25, 2-3 PM: New Hampton Public Library Meeting Room – 20 West Spring Street, New Hampton 50659

   * Monday August 25, 4-5 PM: Cresco City Hall Council Chambers – 227 North Elm Street, Cresco 52136

The Sierra Club is encouraging constituents to attend these meetings and send Grassley the message that “drilling won’t lower prices at the pump and it’s time we invest in green solutions that will solve the energy crisis.”

Click here to let the Sierra Club know you plan to attend.

Click the same link to find facts, figures and talking points on why increased offshore oil drilling only benefits oil companies and why Americans need clean energy solutions. The same page contains a word document you can download and print out to take to the town-hall meeting.

If you go, please put up a diary afterwards, like IowaVoter did after he attended a Grassley town-hall meeting in June.

2laneIA posted a great diary at Daily Kos with photos of activists in chicken suits outside one of Representative Steve King’s recent town-hall forums. Do click over, not just for the pictures. I love this line:

We used to think King was a chicken hawk.  Now he’s just plain old chicken.

I also enjoyed the way 2laneIA referred to the recent publicity stunt by King and other House Republicans as “the Exxon Sleepover Camp on the House floor.”

Background on King’s excuse for not debating Rob Hubler is here.

Hubler staff and volunteers will be out canvassing in more than a dozen towns today. Go here for more details.

Go to Hubler’s campaign website to get more involved in his effort to send Steve King into early retirement.

UPDATE: Anyone in southeast Iowa have a chicken suit? Apparently King is doing a fundraiser with Mariannette Miller-Meeks, the GOP candidate against Dave Loebsack, on Monday, August 18 at 6 pm at The Drake in Burlington.

The U.S. House is in its summer recess, but a bunch of Republicans are giving speeches in the chamber calling for a special session to deal with energy policy.

When there’s an opportunity to score political points without accomplishing anything on behalf of constituents, you know Steve King will be on the scene. Rob Hubler, Democratic candidate to represent Iowa’s fifth district, was rightly dismissive:

Hubler accuses King of grandstanding rather than working to find a “real” resolution. “This is another example of how it is better to go before the camera and try to make some kind of a show out of something,” Hubler says.

Hubler opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, something King supports, as Hubler says there’s a less than six-month supply of oil there and that wouldn’t dramatically reduce the price of gasoline. “I think we need to have a comprehensive approach. We need to understand that we have gotten to where we are because of bickering and because of arguing and because of a lack of congress — Republicans and Democrats — to really look at the future and say, ‘What do we need to be doing?,'” Hubler says. “We need to be looking at alternative, green answers. We need to get nuclear power onto the discussion table.”

Personally, I believe expanding nuclear power is too expensive and too risky, but by all means make it part of a comprehensive discussion on energy policy. I believe its shortcomings will be exposed when compared to less costly options for generating more power or reducing our electricity usage.

But getting back to the point of this diary, it’s typical of Steve King to seize any chance for a monologue as opposed to engaging in real dialogue. Last week King refused an invitation from the Sioux City Journal and the League of Women Voters to debate Hubler. King’s letter to the editor of the Sioux City Journal is after the jump, along with Hubler’s statement on the importance of public debates.

I was amused by King’s excuse for not participating in this debate. He blamed the Sioux City Journal and its “attacks on my character,” adding:

If there are to be Congressional debates, they will take place in a neutral environment.

I wonder what kind of “neutral environment” would satisfy King. He was willing to spend at least an hour answering friendly questions from his fans on a constituent conference call, but his staff screened out SW Iowa Guy’s efforts to ask him about debating Hubler.

I predict that King will find excuses for rejecting all invitations to debate, unless they come from some group like the pro-corporate Club for Growth, which gave King a 98 percent rating on its latest scorecard.

UPDATE: I missed this hilarious passage from John Deeth’s write-up at Iowa Independent:

King spoke Monday on a darkened House floor, next to a giant photo of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with the words “I am trying to save the planet” underneath.

King said Pelosi has decided that “saving the planet is worth more than saving the Homo sapiens.”

You’ll never catch Steve King trying to save the planet, that’s for sure!

By the way, Representative Tom Latham is echoing the House Republicans’ talking points on energy policy. Becky Greenwald got it just right in her response:

Greenwald suggests Latham should be embarrassed by his fellow Republicans who are staging a sort of sit-in in the U.S. House of Representatives. “I just look at it more as an election year prank and we have serious work that needs to be done and compromising and discussion that needs to happen and not be trying to pull stunts to garner attention,” Greenwald says.

Greenwald would support drilling for oil along a greater expanse of the U.S. coastline if oil companies prove they’ve fully explored the 68 million acres of ocean ground they’ve already been awarded leases to tap for oil.  “When you think about it, that’s two times the physical size of the state of Iowa and so I’d like to understand why we don’t make use of those lands and that offshore drilling that’s already available,” she says.

If she’s elected to congress, Greenwald says she’ll back greater federal support of alternative energy industries like wind energy, which she says puts Iowans to work in good-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced. “We absolutely need a comprehensive energy policy that’s going to take us into the next several decades,” she says. “We need to be addressing it from all angles.”

Latham went up on the radio last week with an ad touting his support for more offshore oil drilling in the U.S. His rhetoric is consistent with a new Republican strategy document calling on Congressional candidates to put energy issues front and center in their campaigns.

Let’s improve Iowa’s representation in Congress. Get involved in Hubler’s campaign or in Greenwald’s campaign if you have time or money to spare.

Following up on my earlier post on the best way to combat John McCain’s demagoguery, the Sierra Club put out a great release today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 1, 2008

Contact: Kristina Johnson, 415.977.5619

            Josh Dorner, 202.675.2384

                         Oops, He Did It Again!

                  McCain Prefers Own Rhetoric to Facts,

                   Actual Experts on Offshore Drilling

Washington, D.C.–In Florida today, Senator John McCain said he was

convinced offshore drilling would yield immediate oil-despite hard data to

the contrary from experts like the federal government’s Energy Information

Administration.

According to the EIA, it would take 7-10 years for oil to come online from

new drilling, and twenty years to reach peak production. And, as the New

York Times recently noted, because of a recent shortage in drilling

equipment, it could likely take even longer.

But McCain said:

“…So I disagree with those experts and I’ve talked to the actual people

that do the work, that are in the business that say within months and

certainly within a very short time, we could have additional oil supply for

this nation. So we ought to drill now.” (Video HERE)

        Statement of Sierra Club Political Director Cathy Duvall

“Senator McCain may ‘disagree with the experts,’ but that doesn’t make the

facts go away. New offshore drilling simply won’t provide any oil for

roughly a decade. And even then, the Bush administration itself admits that

drilling will do absolutely nothing to lower gas prices today, tomorrow, or

even two decades from now.

“Oil companies aren’t interested in lowering gas prices. Keeping supply

tight and oil prices high keeps Big Oil rolling in record profits. The oil

companies are spending almost ten times more-a full 55 percent of their

record profits-on stock buybacks and dividends than they are on

exploration.  This drives up the price of their shares, their profits, and

the paychecks of their executives.

“This episode is eerily reminiscent of Senator McCain’s insistence that his

misguided ‘gas tax holiday’ would benefit consumers and not simply add to

Big Oil’s record profits.  McCain and his aides continue to insist that the

230 leading economists — including 4 Nobel Prize winners — who denounced

his plan are simply wrong.

“We’re in an energy crisis.  Americans do need short-term help to offset

the cost of gas, and Senator Obama has a plan to give it to them. He has

proposed a $1,000 refund check paid for by taxing Big Oil’s record profits

that would offer us immediate relief. That’s something new drilling won’t

do, no matter what John McCain says.”

                                  # # #

I like this better than the MoveOn “gimmick” ad (which you can view in the earlier post). In addition to pointing out why McCain is wrong on this issue, it links his proposal to what big oil companies want and profit from. Also, the Sierra Club statement has a healthy dose of ridicule, which McCain deserves.

All that’s missing is a line about how we don’t need a third term of a presidency in the pocket of Big Oil. I’m with Dansac on the need to repeat “McCain is Bush’s third term” as often as possible.

Meanwhile, Obama took several steps in the right direction at a town hall meeting in Florida today. He is calling for a $1,000 tax rebate for low and middle-income families. A windfall profits tax on oil companies would pay for the rebates.

The Illinois senator also revamped his proposal for a $50 billion economic stimulus plan to include $25 billion to replenish the highway trust fund and pay for infrastructure improvements that he said could save up to 1 million endangered jobs.

“With job losses mounting, prices rising, increased turbulence in our financial system, a growing credit crunch, we need to do more,” Obama said at a town hall meeting in St. Petersburg, Florida.

The proposals came as the government announced the U.S. unemployment rate hit its highest level in four years with another 51,000 non-farm jobs lost in July, bringing job losses for the year to 463,000.

“Do you think you can afford another four years of the same failed economic policies?” Obama asked, accusing McCain of embracing President George W. Bush’s economic approach.

Let McCain explain why he and the Republican Party refuse to consider a windfall tax on oil companies that are reporting record profits this year.

Use this as an open thread to talk about Barack Obama’s town hall meeting in Cedar Rapids today:

Economic Security Town Hall with Barack Obama

Coe College

Moray L. Eby Fieldhouse

1220 1st Avenue NE

Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52402

THURSDAY, JULY 31ST, 2008

Doors Open: 9:30 AM

Program Begins: 11:30 AM

The event is free and open to the public.  However, tickets are required.

Also, here are some other events coming up.

Thursday, July 31:

It’s the last day to contribute to Barack Obama’s campaign for a chance to win a trip to the Democratic National Convention in Denver:

https://donate.barackobama.com…

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is also giving away a trip to Denver. Donate before midnight on July 31 for a chance to win:

http://dccc.org/blog/archives/…

One Iowa and Green Drinks are co-hosting a Happy Hour from 5 to 7 pm at the Hillside Condo Penthouse, 1902 Woodland Ave in Des Moines, suite 300 (the building next to the Gateway Market). Suggested donation $20, but no one is turned away. Please RSVP at oneiowa.org.

From Polk County Democrats:

You are cordially invited to attend a wine and cheese reception for John Scarpino, Democratic Candidate for Polk County Supervisor, at the home of Ray and Karen Blase, 913 NE 34th Street, Ankeny, July 31 from 5:30 to 7:30 P.M.

From the Rebuild Iowa Commission:

First ‘Speak Up Iowa!’ Public Listening Session Will Also Be Held at

Kirkwood Community College Thursday 4-7 p.m.

Press Release from Rebuild Iowa Office

Subject: REBUILD IOWA ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD IN CEDAR RAPIDS

THIS THURSDAY

First ‘Speak Up Iowa!’ Public Listening Session Will Also Be Held at

Kirkwood Community College

On Thursday, the Rebuild Iowa Office will hold its second Rebuild Iowa

Advisory Commission (RIAC) meeting at Kirkwood Community College in Cedar

Rapids to discuss the state’s recovery and rebuilding efforts following this

year’s severe storms and flooding. In addition, the public will have the

opportunity to give their input on the recovery process at the first “Speak

Up Iowa!” public listening session, which will also be held Thursday.

The “Speak Up Iowa!” listening sessions initiate dialogue on the major

issues facing the State and provide an opportunity for official public and

community involvement, with specific focus on gaining input for the RIO

45-day Report due September 2, 2008. The session will include nine booths,

each representing one of the nine task force areas. At these booths,

residents will have the opportunity to voice their ideas and desires

regarding the long-term recovery of their communities.

THURSDAY, JULY 31, 2008

WHAT: Rebuild Iowa Advisory Commission to hold its second meeting to discuss

the state’s disaster and rebuilding efforts.

WHERE: Emergency Operations Center

              (located in the Community Training and Response Center)

              Kirkwood Community College Campus

              6301 Kirkwood Blvd. SW

              Cedar Rapids, Iowa

              (A map of the campus is available at

www.kirkwood.edu/maincampus.)

WHEN:   2 to 5 p.m.

THURSDAY, JULY 31, 2008

WHAT: Rebuild Iowa Office holds first “Speak Up Iowa!” public listening

session.

WHERE: Iowa Hall, Rooms A through D

              Kirkwood Community College Campus

              6301 Kirkwood Blvd. SW

              Cedar Rapids, Iowa

(A map of the campus is available at www.kirkwood.edu/maincampus.)

WHEN:   4 to 7 p.m.

From 1000 Friends of Iowa:

Johnson County Conservation Board Holding Public Meetings on Land Conservation

A series of informational meetings will be held to receive input from the public on the Johnson County Conservation Board’s proposed $20 million Conservation Bond Issue Ballot Measure for land protection. The measure will be put before the voters of Johnson County on the November 4, 2008, General Election Ballot. Conservation Board members and staff will be on hand to give an overview of the proposal and Mark Ackelson, President of the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, will facilitate the meetings.

According to the Johnson County Conservation Board’s newsletter, The Conservation Connection:

   * “Local organizations and individuals struggle to preserve some natural lands. The Johnson County Conservation Board, which has the mandated responsibility, has responded by making a serious commitment to find ways to protect more remaining vestiges of unique natural areas before they are destroyed by the relentless march of development.”

Two of these public meetings have already occurred, and there are two left.

Thursday, July 31, 2008

7:00 – 9:00 pm

North Liberty Recreation Center

Classroom C

520 West Cherry Street

North Liberty

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

7:00 – 9:00 pm

Solon Public Library

Meeting Room

320 West Main Street

Solon

To learn more about the proposal before the meetings, check out the JCCB’s newsletter article at

http://www.johnson-county.com/…

Questions about the meetings should be directed to Harry Graves, Director, Johnson County Conservation Board at 319-645-2315 or email hgraves@co.johnson.ia.us.

It’s a rare opportunity to vote on a topic such as this Conservation Bond Issue. Only through the involvement of committed citizens will governments be able to implement strategies that protect natural areas from development. Your ears, eyes, and voices are critical!

Friday, August 1:

From the Polk County Democrats:

The Festa Italiana is going on this weekend.  We will be manning a booth on Friday and Saturday this year.  The hours we need volunteers are:

Friday, August 1 5p – 7p or 7p – 9p

Saturday, August 2  2p – 4p, 4p – 6p, and 6p – 9p

Please let me know if you are available to help out.

Thanks!

Tamyra Harrison

Executive Director

Polk County Democrats

515-285-1800

Saturday, August 2:

From Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa:

Volunteer Opportunity

Des Moines Farmer’s Market

Court Avenue Area

Des Moines

Saturday, August 2nd

8am-12pm

Click Here to Volunteer!

Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa and the Healthy Families project will be at the Des Moines Farmer’s Market this Saturday, August 2nd.

We need your help!

Volunteers will represent the Planned Parenthood mission, and help educate people about the need to reduce unintended pregnancies in Iowa.  Of course we’ll be handing out lots of goodies as well!

Past Farmer’s market volunteers have had a lot of fun, and say it’s one of the best volunteer opportunities available.

“This was the first time I’ve ever volunteered for Planned Parenthood and it was so much fun!  I felt like I really made a difference!” – Judy, volunteer at past Des Moines Farmer’s Markets.

Help educate the public and have fun too. Any time you can give is much appreciated: work for a couple of hours, or the whole time. Shifts are available from 8am – 12pm.

Thanks for all that you do for Planned Parenthood!

E-mail Chelsea Hammond to volunteer (chammond AT ppgi.org) or call (515) 235-0415

From the Sierra Club e-mail loop:

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – A Priceless Gift

A Presentation and Storytelling

about a very Special Place

When:      Saturday August 2nd, 2008, at 10:00 am

Where:     Urbandale Public Library, Meeting Room A/B

               3520 86th Street Urbandale, Iowa  50322

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of America’s premier wilderness

areas.  The coastal plain of the Refuge has been threatened by oil drilling

many times in its 50 year history. Today, threats from Big Oil are greater

than they have been for over two decades.  Come learn about the history,

it’s values, and how you can help protect this national treasure.

This is a story, as well, of indigenous concerns, and about raising the

voices of those urging our government to recognize the rights of indigenous

peoples.

For more information contact: Lois Norrgard 952-881-7282 lois@alaskawild.org

Presented by:

Sarah James, a Neetsaii Gwich’in Athabascan Indian from Arctic Village,

Alaska, raised in the traditional nomadic way. Sarah was one of the first

recipients of the Ford Foundation Leadership for a Changing World Award and

a co-recipient of the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for her work

with the Gwich’in Steering Committee to protect the calving and nursery

grounds of the Porcupine River Caribou Herd. The Porcupine Caribou Herd has

sustained the Gwich’in for over twenty thousand years.

Lois Norrgard, the Upper Midwest Field staff for the Alaska Wilderness

League. She has worked for the League and Alaska Coalition for the past

three years, continuing to raise awareness about the values and threats

facing our beautiful wild lands in Alaska.

Some places are just too special to destroy for a short term gain – the

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of these places

Iowa Politics has this press release from Representative Tom Latham’s campaign about

a statewide radio ad highlighting Latham’s work to lower gas and energy prices for Iowa families.

The sixty second ad reinforces Latham’s continued commitment to renewable energy but also discusses the need for Congress to work immediately to increase domestic energy supplies that America controls.

“$4.00 a gallon gas hurts Iowa families,” notes Latham in the ad. “And they’re frustrated with leaders in Congress for not doing more about it – and they have every right to be.”

“I have always been, and will continue to be, a strong supporter of alternative energy research and production, but we need to work for solutions that get Iowans from point A to point B without busting their family budget.”

Latham has been working in Congress on legislation aimed at increasing our domestic supply of affordable that will lower gas and energy prices through the increased use of our current resources, to include off-shore drilling and drilling in ANWR.

Latham recently told Iowa Independent that Republicans can ride high gas prices to victory this November. It’s not clear to me why this is a big selling point for the GOP–shouldn’t they have been doing something to reduce our dependence on foreign oil during the years Republicans controlled Congress as well as the presidency?

Anyway, some Republicans clearly believe that this issue will save them from an otherwise hostile political environment. Last week John McCain started running a television ad blaming Barack Obama for high gas prices because Obama opposes more offshore oil drilling.

The rapid response from Becky Greenwald’s campaign points out the various misleading aspects of Latham’s radio ad:

For Immediate Release                                                                      Contact: Erin Seidler

July 29, 2008                                                                                                         515-537-4465

Latham Runs Misleading Ad on Drilling To Divert From Votes Against Immediate Gas Price Relief

Waukee, IA – This week, Tom Latham’s campaign released a radio ad misleading voters about offshore drilling. Experts agree that offshore drilling will do nothing to lower gas prices for seven to ten years, and its clear that this ad is a diversion from Latham’s votes against opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and forcing oil companies to drill on existing leases. (McClatchy, 6/18/08)

“I’m running for Congress because of these sort of shenanigans. Latham is trying to get Iowans to think about leasing 2,000 more acres when 68 million acres already leased are open, untapped and will lower prices. Latham is trying to divert attention from his failure to support immediate relief through opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and forcing oil companies to drill on existing leases,” said Becky Greenwald, Candidate for Congress in Iowa’s 4th District. “Is it too much to ask for leaders to be honest with us?”

Unfortunately, Latham, like George Bush decided to play politics with gas prices. Last week, he voted against a bill that would release 70 million barrels of oil from the strategic oil reserve to bring relief from high gas prices. This bill would bring almost immediate relief to high gas prices. (H. Res. 6578)

And two weeks ago, Latham voted against a bill to force oil companies to drill on existing leases. There are 68 million acres of federal land already leased by oil companies. That is two times the size of the state of Iowa available for energy production that is now sitting idle. (H.R. 615)

Instead, Democrats in Congress and Becky Greenwald are fighting for a comprehensive energy policy that includes in the short term, opening the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and forcing oil companies to drill on almost 68 million acres of existing leases.

In the long term, Becky will fight to invest in a green energy industry here in Iowa by investing in ethanol, wind energy, biodiesel, and other homegrown, alternative forms of energy.

“I know that investing in renewable fuels will reduce our reliance on foreign oil and bring down gas prices and create thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs in rural America, including Iowa’s 4th District,” Greenwald continued. “It’s time for a solution, not diversion tactics.”

The bolded passages were bold in the original, by the way.

Latham’s advocacy of more oil drilling will do nothing to solve our energy problems. Even the president of the Teamsters Union, which has long supported increased oil drilling in the U.S., declared last week that

“We must find a long-term approach that breaks our dependence on foreign oil by investing in the development of alternate energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal power.”

Furthermore, public opinion on this matter may not be where Latham thinks it is. The polling firm Rasmussen says the public is divided on whether more drilling is the answer:

A new Rasmussen Reports national survey, taken last night (Monday), finds that 45% think placing more restrictions on energy speculators is more important , while 42% take the opposite view that allowing offshore oil drilling is more important.

A major partisan divide on the issue, like the split in Congress, is evident, however. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of Republicans say lifting the ban is the highest priority, while 59% of Democrats – and 48% of unaffiliated voters — say controlling speculators is more important. Only 29% of unaffiliateds say lift the ban first.

Unaffiliated or “no-party” voters have a slim plurality among registered voters in Iowa’s fourth district, and there are about 8,000 more Democrats than Republicans in the district.

If Rasmussen’s findings are accurate, it seems that Latham is out of step with his district.

If you reject Latham’s misleading spin on energy policy, please donate to Greenwald’s campaign to help her respond on the air. This race will be very competitive if she can raise enough money to get her message out. Remember, the fourth district has a partisan index of D+0, meaning that its vote in 2004 closely matched the nationwide partisan split.

Final note: Latham’s press release says the radio ad is running statewide. That’s a lot more expensive than just running the ad in fourth district markets.

Is he trying to raise his profile outside his district to pave the way for a gubernatorial bid in 2010? If he loses to Greenwald, he could start campaigning for governor immediately. But even if he wins re-election, serving in Congress isn’t much fun when you’re in the minority party.  

Stay tuned:

Senator Barack Obama’s postponed trip to Cedar Rapids has been rescheduled for Thursday, July 31st, 2008. Senator Obama’s visit to Cedar Rapids was originally scheduled for June, but was postponed due to the floods.

On Thursday, Senator Obama will host a town hall meeting on the economy in Cedar Rapids. He will also meet with Cedar Rapids residents affected by the floods. Further details of Senator Obama’s visit will follow in the coming days.

As always, post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if I’ve left out any important events coming up this week.

Monday, July 28:

Representative Bruce Braley will hold a series of public meetings:

8:00am                      Bettendorf Congress on Your Corner

                                   Mississippi Bend Area Education Agency

                                    729 21st Street

                                    Bettendorf , Iowa

10:45am                  De Witt Congress on Your Corner

                                   Frances Banta Waggoner Community Library

                                    505 10th Street

                                    De Witt , Iowa

12:45pm                  Maquoketa Congress on Your Corner

                                   Maquoketa Area Family YMCA

                                    500 E. Summit Street

                                    Maquoketa , Iowa

From the Center on Sustainable Communities:

Join COSC at our Site Preparation and Construction & Demolition Source Separation Workshop on Monday, July 28th, 2008 from 4:00 to 7:00 pm at the WDM affordable green demonstration home site – 927 Maple Street in Historic Valley Junction. This will be the first in our series of workshops at the affordable green demonstration homes in the Des Moines metro area.

To RSVP, contact Emily at 515-277-6222 or Emily@icosc.com.

Visit www.icosc.com for details.

Tuesday, July 29:

There is an open house/fundraising reception for Bill McCarthy, Democrat and candidate for Polk County Sheriff, from 4:30 to 6:30 pm at the home of Jim & Roxanne Conlin, 2900 Southern Hills Circle in Des Moines. (Just head west on Park Ave. about a mile and a half west of Fleur Drive; turn north off of Park Ave. on Southern Hills Drive; drive north until you reach Southern Hills Circle.)

Contributions Appreciated:  Checks may be made payable to: McCarthy for Sheriff

Or mail contribution to:

Bill McCarthy for Sheriff,

5201 SE 32nd St., Des Moines, IA 50320

* For questions or to RSVP, contact Linda at 205-4351 *

From the DNR:

BLACK HAWK COUNTY RESIDENTS ASKED TO SHARE IDEAS ON IMPROVING GEORGE WYTH LAKE

MEDIA CONTACT: Jeff Berckes at (515) 281-4791 or jeff.berckes@dnr.iowa.gov or Charles Ikenberry at (515) 281-8753 or charles.ikenberry@dnr.iowa.gov.

CEDAR FALLS – Iowans interested in improving George Wyth Lake in Black Hawk County can attend a meeting July 29 to discuss and review a recent water quality study and its suggestions for improving the lake.

George Wyth Lake is on the state’s impaired waters list because of excess E. coli in the water, which may indicate the presence of disease-causing pathogens. Geese that reside in the park appear to be the primary contributor to this problem.

The study, or DNR water quality improvement plan, looks at the problems and potential solutions for the problems in George Wyth Lake. It is designed as a guide for improving the lake for local resource agencies, partners, stakeholders and residents.

“We are excited to inform people about the study and discuss how the DNR and George Wyth patrons can work together to improve the lake,” said Jeff Berckes with the DNR’s Watershed Improvement program. “This meeting is the first step forward in revitalizing a great Iowa natural resource and we look forward to working with local community members to incorporate their ideas on how to put an effective plan into action.”

The DNR will ask Iowans for their input at a July 29 meeting in Cedar Falls. The meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. at the Hartman Reserve Nature Center, 657 Reserve Dr.

Staff from the DNR’s Lake Restoration program, Watershed Improvement program and Fisheries and Wildlife bureaus will also be on hand to answer questions.

Those not able to attend the public meeting can receive more information at www.iowadnr.gov/water/watershed/tmdl/publicnotice.html and submit comments on the plan by Aug. 19 via the following ways:

E-mail: jeff.berckes@dnr.iowa.gov

Telephone:        Jeff Berckes at (515) 281-4791

Mail:                 Jeff Berckes, care of Iowa DNR, Wallace State Office Building,

502 E. Ninth St.,Des Moines, Iowa 50319

After gathering Iowans’ comments, the DNR will forward the final plan, also called by its technical name of Total Maximum Daily Load, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for approval. Local groups interested in helping George Wyth Lake can then use the plan to assist their improvement efforts.

Wednesday, July 30:

From the Center on Sustainable Communities:

Richard Louv Lecture

Hoyt Sherman Place

1501 Woodland Ave.

Des Moines, IA 50309

Wed, July 30

7:00 pm

Richard Louv is an author and journalist focused on nature, family and community. His most recent book, Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder, has stimulated an international conversation about the future relationship between children and nature, and has helped spawn a movement that is now moving into the international sphere. He serves as chairman of the Children and Nature Network, an organization helping to build the international movement to connect children with nature.

Visit http://iowagogreen.com/eventti… for tickets.

Tickets are free but seating is limited and may not be available at the door.

Thursday, July 31:

Barack Obama will hold a town-hall meeting in Cedar Rapids. I’ll post more details about this event when they become available.

One Iowa and Green Drinks are co-hosting a Happy Hour from 5 to 7 pm at the Hillside Condo Penthouse, 1902 Woodland Ave in Des Moines, suite 300 (the building next to the Gateway Market). Suggested donation $20, but no one is turned away. Please RSVP at oneiowa.org.

From Polk County Democrats:

You are cordially invited to attend a wine and cheese reception for John Scarpino, Democratic Candidate for Polk County Supervisor, at the home of Ray and Karen Blase, 913 NE 34th Street, Ankeny

Thursday, July 31 from 5:30 to 7:30 P.M.

Come and hear why John is a candidate for office

and enjoy a glass of wine with old friends.

Saturday, August 2:

From the Sierra Club e-mail loop:

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – A Priceless Gift

A Presentation and Storytelling

about a very Special Place

When:      Saturday August 2nd, 2008, at 10:00 am

Where:     Urbandale Public Library, Meeting Room A/B

               3520 86th Street Urbandale, Iowa  50322

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of America’s premier wilderness

areas.  The coastal plain of the Refuge has been threatened by oil drilling

many times in its 50 year history. Today, threats from Big Oil are greater

than they have been for over two decades.  Come learn about the history,

it’s values, and how you can help protect this national treasure.

This is a story, as well, of indigenous concerns, and about raising the

voices of those urging our government to recognize the rights of indigenous

peoples.

For more information contact: Lois Norrgard 952-881-7282 lois@alaskawild.org

Presented by:

Sarah James, a Neetsaii Gwich’in Athabascan Indian from Arctic Village,

Alaska, raised in the traditional nomadic way. Sarah was one of the first

recipients of the Ford Foundation Leadership for a Changing World Award and

a co-recipient of the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for her work

with the Gwich’in Steering Committee to protect the calving and nursery

grounds of the Porcupine River Caribou Herd. The Porcupine Caribou Herd has

sustained the Gwich’in for over twenty thousand years.

Lois Norrgard, the Upper Midwest Field staff for the Alaska Wilderness

League. She has worked for the League and Alaska Coalition for the past

three years, continuing to raise awareness about the values and threats

facing our beautiful wild lands in Alaska.

Some places are just too special to destroy for a short term gain – the

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of these places

There’s big news today for those who have been working toward “blue-green alliances” between organized labor and environmental groups.

Thanks to this Daily Kos diary by TomP, I learned that Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa has pulled the union out of an alliance supporting more oil drilling in environmentally sensitive areas:

“We are not going to drill our way out of the energy problems we are facing-not here and not in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” Hoffa told labor and environmental activists at an Oakland, Calif., summit on good jobs and clean air. “We must find a long-term approach that breaks our dependence on foreign oil by investing in the development of alternate energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal power.”

Hoffa then announced the union’s withdrawal from the ANWR coalition, citing the need to build a green economy that fosters the development of alternative energy sources and creates good union jobs-instead of lining the pockets of big oil tycoons.

Hoffa also said that by investing in green energy solutions, the nation will reap the benefits of curbing its dependence on oil through a revitalized economy with the creation of millions of new jobs in a rapidly growing industry.

The Sierra Club and United Steelworkers forged a “Blue-Green Alliance” in 2006 and jointly endorsed Barack Obama for president at an event in Ohio last month.

But the Teamsters have been strong supporters of expanding oil drilling in the past. I never thought I’d see the day when Jim Hoffa pulled out of the ANWR coalition.

The battle over proposed coal-fired power plants has strained relations between labor unions and environmental advocates in Iowa this year. Today’s news gives me hope that in the future we will see more cooperation between those groups in promoting a forward-looking energy policy.

UPDATE: Al Rodgers has lots of video and photos of the reception Obama got from American soldiers in Baghdad. Think these people want to be home with their families?

A staple of John McCain’s stump speech has been to play up his military experience and to claim that he, unlike Barack Obama, will be able to win the war in Iraq.

It wasn’t the strongest hand to begin with, because polls show that a clear majority of Americans would rather bring our troops home from Iraq than keep them there indefinitely. Nevertheless, it made sense for McCain, an outspoken supporter of this unpopular war, to try to depict Obama’s plan for Iraq as irresponsible.

Trouble is, earlier this month Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki called for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops. Obama quickly published this New York Times editorial laying out his plan:

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition – despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success – it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

As Obama pointed out, President Bush and McCain have repeatedly said they would respect the wishes of the sovereign Iraqi government. Well, Al-Maliki told the German magazine Der Spiegel last week that he supports the timetable laid out by Obama.

An unnamed Republican strategist summed it up for Marc Ambinder: “We’re f*cked.”

Couldn’t Al-Maliki have been mistranslated? It doesn’t look that way. NBC’s First Read had this to say on Monday about John McCain’s “rough weekend”:

You know you had a problematic weekend when: 1) one of your top economic advisers/surrogates finally steps down from the campaign after his “nation of whiners” remark; 2) you get panned for breaking CODEL protocol/etiquette by announcing (incorrectly) at a fundraiser that your opponent is headed to Iraq on Friday or Saturday; 3) the prime minister of Iraq tells a German magazine that he backs your opponent’s plan for withdrawing troops from that country; and 4) when the Iraqi government tries to walk back that support, it does so unconvincingly. On the bright side for McCain, his campaign seized on remarks from Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen that withdrawing US troops over the next two years would be “dangerous.”

[…]

Per NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Obama has arrived in Baghdad and he spoke with Maliki. The headline after their photo-op: Maliki’s spokesman said afterwards (in English) that the Iraqi vision is for all US troops to be out of Iraq by 2010. And with this news — as well as the Der Spiegel interview, in which Maliki seemed to back Obama’s withdrawal plan — the trip seems like it has already been a PR success for the Illinois senator.

Memo to political journalists: this trip is a lot more than a PR success. McCain simply doesn’t have anything left supporting his determination to keep us in Iraq long-term. Why should Americans hire him as our commander-in-chief?

Now Republicans are trying to change the subject. Talking heads claim recent events in Iraq prove that McCain was right to support the “surge” in U.S. troops (which Obama opposed but voted to fund).

McCain tried to submit his own op-ed about Iraq to the New York Times, but the newspaper’s editors rejected it because it didn’t contain anything new of substance. (You can read the rejected piece here.)

It doesn’t look like McCain believes he can win the election on the Iraq issue, though. I say that because his paid advertising is not using his own campaign’s talking points on Iraq, such as how Obama never talks about winning the war, only about ending the war.

Instead, the McCain campaign has focused on energy policy in some early commercials. On Monday, as Obama visited Iraq, McCain started running a new television ad contrasting himself and Obama on new oil drilling:

Open Left has the script:

ANNCR: Gas prices – $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.

No to independence from foreign oil.

Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?

CHANT: Obama, Obama

ANNCR: One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets.

Don’t hope for more energy, vote for it. McCain.

JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approve this message.

On substance, this ad is absurd. Drilling for more oil in the U.S. wouldn’t come close to replacing the oil we purchase from foreign countries. Oil companies aren’t even leasing all the currently available fields for offshore drilling. Opening up new drilling sites wouldn’t bring any new oil onto U.S. markets for years.

And anyway, who’s been running the country for the last seven and a half years? Obama’s just one senator out of 100, and he’s only been in Washington since 2005. But suddenly he’s to blame for rising gas prices?

At the same time, this commercial may be effective spin for McCain. To the average person, drilling for more oil here in America may sound like a good way to bring down prices and help us be independent from foreign oil. I also think the crowd chanting Obama’s name will be a turnoff for many viewers. If you don’t already support Obama, that probably sounds creepy.

An earlier McCain ad sought to tie Obama’s “hope and change” message to 1960s hippie culture, but I suspect this new approach has more potential for McCain. It suggests Obama only offers empty hope for more energy, while McCain has a plan. (Never mind that Obama has a much better plan for producing clean energy in the U.S.)

When Obama returns from his trip to the Middle East and Europe, he better have a good response ready on offshore drilling and energy independence.

In other McCain diversion news, the sometimes well-informed columnist Robert Novak says McCain may have something else in mind to steal Obama’s thunder this week:

Sources close to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign are suggesting he will reveal the name of his vice presidential selection this week while Sen. Barack Obama is getting the headlines on his foreign trip.

If McCain does name his running mate early, I doubt he will choose a dark horse. My money would be on Mitt Romney.

Final note: I don’t have satellite radio, but Keith Nichols mentioned that The Bill Press Show on Sirius 146 is doing a countdown of 101 reasons to vote against John McCain. They give a new reason every morning at 7:25 am (central time). The list of reasons 63 through 101 can be found here. The page is updated daily.