“It’s time to put Donald J. Trump back in the White House and restore the future of our country for hardworking Americans!” U.S. Senator Joni Ernst posted on social media on the first day of the Republican National Convention.

Iowa’s junior senator kept busy in Milwaukee, participating in several panel discussions or events arranged by conservative groups, and praising Trump in podcast or television interviews. She appeared at some Iowa GOP functions (though she wasn’t one of our state’s RNC delegates) and honored Trump’s campaign co-manager Chris LaCivita.

But Ernst’s status has diminished since the last time her party nominated Trump for the presidency. She was among a small group of politicians passed over as RNC speakers this year, after giving prime-time addresses at both the 2016 and 2020 conventions.

A rift with team Trump could jeopardize Ernst’s hope to move up another notch in Senate leadership after the November election. It could also inspire a MAGA challenger to run in the GOP primary when the senator seeks a third term in 2026.

Iowans Tamara Scott and Brad Sherman are among some 20 Republicans who signed an unofficial “minority report” on the abortion plank of the Republican National Committee’s platform.

Scott has represented Iowa as RNC committeewoman since 2012 and is the Iowa state director of Concerned Women for America. Sherman is a pastor and first-term member of the Iowa House. He voted for the near-total abortion ban Republican lawmakers approved in July 2023 (which will soon be enforced) and has co-sponsored even more extreme bills to prohibit abortion.

Loyalists to former President Donald Trump wrote the RNC’s new platform and rammed the draft through the National Republican Platform Committee using a closed process, with no subcommittee meetings, little time to review or debate the document, and no votes on proposed amendments. The abortion plank now reads:

Your unintentional comedy for the week: Republican National Committee and Republican Party of Iowa leaders freaking out over lengthy planned television broadcasts about Hillary Clinton. Republicans now threaten not to co-sponsor any presidential debates with CNN or NBC if those networks move forward with a documentary about the former first lady and secretary of state and a miniseries starring Diane Lane, respectively. The RNC is appalled by the “thinly veiled attempt at putting a thumb on the scales of the 2016 presidential election,” while the Iowa GOP is upset by the lack of “journalistic integrity.”

What a pathetic display of weakness and hypocrisy.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, corporations can make and broadcast movies about political figures, and such activity is not considered “electioneering communication” that must be funded through a registered political action committee (PAC). The Citizens United case arose because of a (very negative) corporate movie about Hillary Clinton. I didn’t agree with or welcome Citizens United, but Republicans were happy to treat corporations as people with unlimited free speech in the political sphere. Who are they to tell CNN and NBC not to make money by airing films that could draw a large potential audience?

I’m old enough to remember when prime-time television about controversial political topics had to be balanced with an opposing point of view. But under the GOP’s sainted President Ronald Reagan, the Federal Communications Commission voted to “abolish its fairness doctrine on the ground that it unconstitutionally restricts the free-speech rights of broadcast journalists.” Democrats didn’t like it, but elections have consequences. As a result, CNN and NBC can air films about any political figure as frequently as they believe they can profit from doing so.

P.S. – RNC Chair Reince Priebus and Iowa GOP Chair A.J. Spiker wouldn’t be making this threat if they believed in GOP talking points about Benghazi or Hillary being “old news.”  

Busy weekend in Iowa politics! I’m continuing to update the post on Tom Harkin retiring with reactions and speculation about possible Senate candidates. Here’s an open thread for anything else on your mind.

A bunch of links that caught my eye this week are after the jump.

I’ve seen a lot of flimsy hooks for political fundraising, but nothing like the latest call for donations to the Republican Party of Iowa.

Iowa’s Republican National Committeewoman Kim Lehman announced today by e-mail that she will not seek another term on the RNC this summer.

Iowa’s three representatives on the Republican National Committee were denied entry to a reception with Mitt Romney today after they refused to sign a “delegate pledge form.”

Longtime Iowa political operative Gentry Collins has ended his bid to become chairman of the Republican National Committee, he told RNC members in a January 2 letter. Collins made the news in November by resigning as RNC political director and sending RNC members a devastating critique of current chairman Michael Steele’s leadership. Dropping out of the race to succeed Steele, Collins wrote that

part of his mission in campaigning for chairman was to shed light on the party’s financial condition, which he said, “has been a game-changer for Chairman Steele’s re-election prospects.” […]

“I entered this race to make sure there was a credible alternative to Michael Steele and have said from day one I will not get in the way of electing new leadership at the RNC,” Collins wrote.

Collins continued: “It is after much consideration and thought that I announce my withdrawal from the race for Chairman of the RNC. I believe that there are several qualified candidates in the race for Chairman, each of whom would do a fine job leading the committee through the 2012 Election cycle.”

I figured Collins was a long-shot to take his former boss’s job for various reasons. It didn’t look good for him to establish a committee to support his bid for RNC chairman while he was still working at the committee. Craig Robinson’s critique of Collins’ “ego,” “vengeful style” and “heavy-handed” tactics may have put off some Republican insiders too.

Various “whip counts” published by Washington-based journalists showed Collins with only three firm commitments from voting RNC members, far behind the front-runner, Wisconsin Republican Party chairman Reince Priebus. (That’s pronounced “ryns pree-buhs.”) Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn had publicly backed Collins, but committeeman Steve Scheffler was an early Priebus endorser. Iowa’s committeewoman Kim Lehman is supporting Priebus too; she and Scheffler backed the main alternative to Steele in 2009.

Four previous leaders of the national GOP have been from Iowa. The most recent was pro-choice moderate Mary Louise Smith in the mid-1970s. Smith is still the only woman to have headed the RNC. Two women have entered the race to replace Steele, but a rule requiring the party chair and co-chair to be different genders puts them at a disadvantage.

Longtime Iowa political operative Gentry Collins officially announced yesterday that he will run for chairman of the Republican National Committee this January. Collins filed paperwork for the race last month shortly before he resigned as the RNC’s political director. One of the three Iowa RNC members, state party chairman Matt Strawn, has already endorsed Collins.

However, RNC member Steve Scheffler told The Iowa Republican blog that he will back Wisconsin GOP chairman Reince Priebus for RNC chairman.

Not only is Scheffler supporting Priebus, but he has agreed to serve in Priebus’ “kitchen cabinet.” […]

Preibus won Scheffler’s support by being a strong defender of Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status, having a strong stance on social issues, and pledging to run a tight ship if elected to lead the RNC.

Scheffler’s support of Priebus is also a blow to Gentry Collins’ bid to be RNC chairman. Collins, an Iowan, has spent years working in Iowa politics. His inability to secure the support of all three Iowa RNC members will likely be a red flag to other members of the committee.

Scheffler would have come into contact with Collins when Collins was running Mitt Romney’s Iowa campaign in 2007. Scheffler heads the Iowa Christian Alliance, which organized house parties featuring Romney and several other Republican presidential candidates before the caucuses. (Neither Scheffler nor the Iowa Christian Alliance endorsed a candidate in that GOP field.) Scheffler was elected to represent Iowa at the RNC in July 2008, and Collins worked for John McCain’s campaign in Iowa during that year’s general election.

I haven’t seen any public comment from Iowa’s third RNC representative, Kim Lehman, regarding the upcoming race for chairman. She and Scheffler are ideologically similar, having been elected by the same faction of socially conservative delegates to the Iowa GOP state convention in 2008. In January 2009, Scheffler and Lehman publicly supported Katon Dawson for RNC chairman. He lost to current chairman Michael Steele on the sixth round of balloting.  

Longtime Iowa GOP political operative Gentry Collins has formed a campaign organization to back his likely bid for Republican National Committee chairman this January. If elected, he would be the fifth leader of the national GOP from Iowa and the first since pro-choice moderate Mary Louise Smith chaired the RNC in the mid-1970s.

Collins’ resignation letter as RNC political director probably buried Michael Steele’s already faint hope of being re-elected for another two-year term as party leader. Several factors are likely to count against Collins when the 168 RNC members consider the possible successors to Steele, though.

Michael Steele’s term as chairman of the Republican National Committee expires in January. Although staffing and fundraising problems have marked his tenure in the job, Steele hasn’t ruled out seeking another two years in the position.

That won’t happen if the departing RNC political director Gentry Collins has anything to say about it. Jonathan Martin got hold of the resignation letter Collins sent to Steele and the RNC’s executive committee. Rarely have I heard of an employee denouncing the boss in such a devastating way. Excerpts and background on Collins are after the jump.

UPDATE: Scroll to the bottom for some reactions to Collins’ letter.

Iowa’s Republican National Committeewoman Kim Lehman stood by her false assertion about President Barack Obama’s faith yesterday. As Bleeding Heartland discussed here, Lehman claimed last week that Obama “personally told the muslims that he IS a muslim. Read his lips.” Sam Stein of the Huffington Post asked Lehman to clarify and got this response:

“I was watching television when he was over there talking to the Muslim world and he made it, in my opinion, clear he was partially Muslim,” Lehman told the Huffington Post. “The way he was approaching that speech was, ‘Hey I’m one of you. I’m with you.’ He didn’t have to say that… but he did.” […]

“Again, going back to his speech… he would have said I’m a Christian and I’m from the Christian religion and we can work together. It didn’t appear to me he said Christianity was part of his religion.”

But oops! Stein looked up the transcript of Obama’s June 2009 speech in Cairo and found this:

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I’m a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

The Des Moines Register’s Jennifer Jacobs also sought comment from Lehman yesterday:

This morning, Lehman said she was referring to an Obama speech in Cairo last summer in which he reached out to Muslims “to seek a new beginning.” In that speech, he makes no comment about being Muslim, a transcript shows.

Lehman said she objected to Obama’s speech because “it just had a sense of embracing or aligning with the Muslims. I don’t know. It was unnecessary the stuff he said. That’s the whole point.”

Lehman said she would never give anyone the impression that she is anything but a Christian.

“I don’t give myself an appearance to the Muslims that I am aligning myself with the Muslims. I am strictly a Christian. I believe that. I stand by that. I’ll die by that,” she said.

Jason Hancock noted at Iowa Independent that this isn’t the first time Lehman has used her twitter account to claim Obama is Muslim. According to Stein, though, she may be “the first [Republican] national committee member to fully endorse the Obama-is-a-Muslim view.”

Lehman told Politico to read Obama’s lips regarding his faith. She should take her own advice. She ignores the president’s numerous public statements about being a Christian because in her opinion, one speech “had a sense of embracing or aligning with the Muslims.” Republicans should be embarrassed to have one of their leaders pushing conspiracy theories, and it’s a sad comment on the Iowa GOP that no one stepped up to counter Lehman’s view.

Speaking of poor form, neither Stein nor Jacobs linked to this blog, which was the first to report on Lehman’s comments about the president’s faith.

UPDATE: The Iowa Democratic Party cited Lehman’s comments in a fundraising e-mail, which you can read here. Todd Dorman posted a funny take on this episode too.

Krusty Konservative feels Lehman is “not helping the Republican cause.”

You come across the strangest things on Twitter sometimes:

Yes, it’s delusional to believe Politico is in the game to “protect” Barack Obama, but for now I’m more interested in Republican National Committeewoman Kim Lehman’s claim that the president is Muslim. Presumably she was responding to Tim Grieve’s August 19 report for Politico on the latest Pew survey about the president’s religion. Pew found that about 18 percent of American adults say Obama is Muslim, while about 34 percent say Obama is Christian. About 34 percent of those who identified themselves as conservative Republicans told Pew Obama was Muslim. Grieve’s report referred to “a dramatic spike in false views about the president’s religious faith.” Politico’s Josh Gerstein also reported on the Pew finding, as well as a Time magazine survey which (using different wording) found even higher numbers of Republicans believe the president is Muslim.

Neither Lehman nor anyone else would claim Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad’s not really a Christian because his mother was Jewish. Yet for some reason, it’s not enough for Lehman that Obama has been baptized, regularly attended Christian churches for many years and was sworn in on a Christian bible.

I wonder how many other prominent Iowa Republicans believe the urban legend about Obama being Muslim. Representative Steve King recently claimed Obama is a “Marxist” who “surely understands the Muslim culture.” What about Senator Chuck Grassley, Representative Tom Latham and Republican Congressional candidates Ben Lange, Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Brad Zaun?

State party chairman Matt Strawn and Steve Scheffler, head of the Iowa Christian Alliance, are Iowa’s other two representatives on the RNC. Do they and members of the Iowa GOP’s State Central Committee share Lehman’s view?

Branstad’s own interfaith family background makes him an ideal person to speak publicly about religion as a matter of faith and an individual’s spiritual journey, as opposed to a genetic inheritance. But I’m not holding my breath for Branstad to dispel false rumors about Obama. He generally avoids taking any position that would anger conservatives–when he’s not kowtowing to far-right sentiment, that is.

The Democratic National Committee voted today to keep the Iowa caucuses the first presidential nominating contest in 2012, according to Iowa Democratic Party Executive Director Norm Sterzenbach, who’s attending the DNC meeting.

I’ll update this post with more details as they become available. In July, the DNC Rules Committee approved the following calendar: Iowa caucuses on February 6, 2012; New Hampshire primary on February 14; Nevada caucuses on February 18; and South Carolina primary on February 28. All other Democratic nominating contests would occur in March or later. The Republican National Committee has adopted a calendar keeping Iowa first as well.

Any thoughts about the 2012 caucuses are welcome in this thread.

A month after the House and Senate unanimously approved a bill restricting direct-mail pieces designed to look like census documents, the Republican National Committee is at it again:

An RNC mailer obtained by TPMmuckraker bears the words “Census Document” and, in all caps, “DO NOT DESTROY/OFFICIAL DOCUMENT,” on the outside of the envelope. In smaller letters, it says: “This is not a U.S. government document.” The new law requires, among other things, that such mailers state the name and address of the sender on the outside of the envelope — something the RNC’s missive doesn’t appear to do. Inside, a letter from RNC chair Michael Steele, dated April 12, asks recipients to fill out a questionnaire about their political views, and solicits donations of as much as $500 or more. (See the mailer here.)

Last month, in response to virtually identical RNC mailers, members of both parties cried foul, raising the concern that the mailers could reduce the response rate for the actual Census — which was mailed to Americans last month — by confusing some voters. […] Congress quickly passed a law — the House vote was 416-0 — requiring that mailers marked “census” state the name and address of the sender on the outside of the envelope, and contain an unambiguous disclaimer making clear that the mailer is not affiliated with the government.

Based on a PDF image, the mailer obtained by TPMmuckraker does not appear to state the sender’s name and address on the outside. And the words “DO NOT DESTROY/OFFICIAL DOCUMENT” would appear to make the disclaimer that it’s not a government document less than unambiguous.

The RNC’s fundraising efforts have taken a hit this year, and Chairman Michael Steele is under pressure to turn things around, so I can’t say I’m surprised by this desperate act.

On a related note, census mail-back rates exceeded expectations this year, which will save the U.S. Census Bureau hundreds of millions of dollars. Iowa’s census participation rate is 77 percent so far, tied for third with Indiana and just behind Wisconsin and Minnesota. Many communities in Polk County have participation rates over 80 percent.  

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has been under pressure lately. Since he took over in January 2009, the RNC has spent far more than it has raised, and the latest numbers show the Democratic National Committee ahead of the RNC in cash of hand (which is highly unusual). Major Republican donors have been fleeing the RNC for various reasons, including staffers’ embarrassing fundraising proposals and massive overspending on luxury hotels, limos and nightclubs. Today RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay resigned, prompting one of Steele’s advisers to leave in what Jonathan Martin described as “a full-scale bloodletting”:

“Leadership requires that I can safely assure you, our donors, and the American people that our mission is what drives every dollar we spend, every phone call we make, every email we send and every event we organize,” Steele wrote in the email [sent to RNC members and donors on Monday], obtained by POLITICO. “Recent events have called that assurance into question and the buck stops with me. That is why I have made this change in my management team and why I am confident about going forward to November with renewed focus and energy.”

McKay didn’t immediately respond to an email requesting comment.

But his apparent firing has roiled the close-knit world of GOP operatives and Monday night longtime Republican strategist and Steele adviser Curt Anderson said his consulting firm would no longer be working with the RNC.

“Ken McKay’s departure is a huge loss for the Republican Party,” Anderson said in a statement to POLITICO. “Ken steered the party through very successful elections last fall that have given us tremendous momentum. He’s a great talent. Given our firm’s commitments to campaigns all over the country we have concluded it is best for us to step away from our advisory role at the RNC. We have high personal regard for the Chairman and always have; we wish him well.”

It’s hard to see how the turmoil at the RNC won’t end with Steele’s departure, although Josh Marshall argued today that Steele

can’t be fired, in significant measure, because he’s black. Because canning Steele now would only drive home the reality that Republicans were trying to paper over, fairly clumsily, when they hired him in the first place. So Republicans are stuck with his myriad goofs and #pressfails and incompetent management and all the rest because of a set of circumstances entirely of their own making.

Hey, don’t blame Iowa’s RNC members; they voted for Katon Dawson over Steele in January 2009. But I must say I doubt a guy who became a Republican because the government desegregated his high school, and more recently belonged to an all-white country club, would have been the right man to rebuild the GOP’s image.

Yesterday the House of Representatives unanimously approved HR 4261, the Prevent Deceptive Census Look-Alike Mailings Act. The short bill would ban fundraising letters like those the Republican National Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee sent last month, which gave the appearance of being official census documents. Those mailings were legal because they did not “use the full name of the U.S. Census Bureau or the seal of any government agency.” However, even Republicans have admitted that the tactic crosses a line, and no one in the House GOP caucus wanted to go on record opposing the bill yesterday.

On the other hand, it costs Congressional Republicans nothing to vote for this bill. Their committees are already cashing checks from this year’s deception, and the next census won’t roll around for ten years. If Republicans truly believe it’s wrong to raise money with a fake census letter, they should return all contributions from suckers they’ve duped this year.  

The Republican National Committee had its “worst election-year cash flow this decade” in 2009. RNC Chairman Michael Steele started the year with about $22 million cash on hand and ended the year with less than $9 million in the bank. Fortunately for him, the GOP may make up the lost ground with an innovative scam fundraising tool: fake census forms.

The fundraising letter comes in the form of a “survey,” a frequently used device for partisan fundraising, but this one has a twist: Calling itself the “Congressional District Census,” the letter comes in an envelope starkly printed with the words, “DO NOT DESTROY OFFICIAL DOCUMENT” and describes itself, on the outside of the envelope, as a “census document.”

“Strengthening our party for the 2010 elections is going to take a massive grass-roots effort all across America,” Steele writes in a letter that blends official-sounding language, partisan calls to arms, and requests for between $25 and $500. “That is why I have authorized a census to be conducted for every congressional district in the country.”

Representative Dave Loebsack recently warned constituents in Iowa’s second district about the RNC’s appeal: “This fundraising letter even calls itself a ‘Census survey’ and asks people to pay for the cost of processing the census form.” Iowa Independent posted a link to a scanned version of the mailing in this piece by Lynda Waddington. She notes, “The mailing includes a ‘census tracking code’ as well as a deadline to respond.”

Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York introduced legislation this week to “prevent deceptive census lookalike mailings.” Earlier, she and Representative William Clay of Missouri wrote the U.S. Postmaster General, charging the RNC was breaking federal law by sending out an “attempt to mislead recipients.” Even if Maloney’s bill moved forward, it would come too late to stop this fundraising drive.

Apparently the RNC’s mailing is legal, according to the postal service, because “it doesn’t use the full name of the U.S. Census Bureau or the seal of any government agency.” But Ben Smith writes at Politico,

Even some who have been involved with the program, however, acknowledged that it walks the line.

“Of course, duping people is the point. … That’s one of the reasons why it works so well,” said one Republican operative familiar with the program, who said it’s among the RNC’s most lucrative fundraising initiatives. “They will likely mail millions this year [with] incredible targeting.”

Shameful.

The Republican National Committee won’t be imposing the “purity test” proposed by committeeman James Bopp of Indiana. During last week’s meetings in Honolulu, a group of state GOP chairs unanimously voted against requiring Republican candidates to agree with at least eight out of ten conservative policy stands in order to receive RNC support during the 2010 campaign.

Bopp withdrew his motion from the floor on Friday after a compromise had been reached. RNC members then unanimously passed a non-binding resolution that “only ‘urges’ party leaders to support nominees who back the party’s platform,” Politico’s Jonathan Martin reported.

Republican candidates for U.S. Senate in Illinois and Delaware would have failed Bopp’s purity test and therefore not qualified for RNC support. The resolution that passed does not penalize candidates who disagree with various “core principles” of the GOP. Still, Bopp tried to spin the compromise as a victory:

“You’ve got to determine that the candidate supports all the core principles of the Republican Party before you support them,” he said, explaining the alternate measure.

But when asked whether it was binding, Bopp was cut off by Oregon GOP Chairman Bob Tiernan, who was standing nearby the impromptu press briefing.

“That resolution passed is not binding; it’s a suggestion,” said Tiernan.

As Bopp began to again make his case for the compromise, Tiernan again interjected.

“There’s nothing mandatory or required in there,” the Oregonian noted.

“Can I answer the question, Mr. Chairman?” Bopp shot back.

Continuing, Bopp explained that he thought the RNC’s decision to, for the first time, make it party policy to urge candidates to pledge fealty to the GOP platform represented a significant step.

But Tiernan, standing just over Bopp’s shoulder, again rebutted his committee colleague.

“I’m not going to take that back and make my candidates sign it, that’s ridiculous,” Tiernan said, gesturing toward the compromise resolution in a reporter’s hand. “We don’t have a litmus test and we rejected the litmus test today.”

As Bopp continued, Tiernan again spoke up.

“There’s nothing binding in there,” said the state chairman.

“Can I finish?” a plainly annoyed Bopp asked.

“Read the words,” replied Tiernan.

“Shut up,” Bopp finally said.

Although the RNC papered over this dispute, clearly tensions remain over whether Republican leaders should insist that candidates be conservatives.

Two of Iowa’s RNC members, Steve Scheffler and Kim Lehman, supported Bopp’s purity test. Our state’s third representative on the RNC, Iowa GOP chairman Matt Strawn, didn’t comment on Bopp’s effort when it first emerged or last week, to my knowledge. I assume he agreed with other state party chairs, who according to various reports strongly opposed the idea. If that is inaccurate, I hope someone will correct me.

Following up on my review of news from the first half of last year, I’ve posted links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage of Iowa politics from July through December 2009 after the jump.

Hot topics on this blog during the second half of the year included the governor’s race, the special election in Iowa House district 90, candidates announcing plans to run for the state legislature next year, the growing number of Republicans ready to challenge Representative Leonard Boswell, state budget constraints, and a scandal involving the tax credit for film-making.

I expected 2009 to be a relatively quiet year in Iowa politics, but was I ever wrong.

The governor’s race heated up, state revenues melted down, key bills lived and died during the legislative session, and the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Varnum v Brien became one of this state’s major events of the decade.

After the jump I’ve posted links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage of Iowa politics from January through June 2009. Any comments about the year that passed are welcome in this thread.

Although I wrote a lot of posts last year, there were many important stories I didn’t manage to cover. I recommend reading Iowa Independent’s compilation of “Iowa’s most overlooked and under reported stories of 2009,” as well as that blog’s review of “stories that will continue to impact Iowa in 2010.”

Following up on the diary I posted this morning, this post compiles links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage of national politics from July through December 2009. Health care reform was again the number one topic. I wish there had been a happy ending.

It took me a week longer than I anticipated, but I finally finished compiling links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage from last year. This post and part 2, coming later today, include stories on national politics, mostly relating to Congress and Barack Obama’s administration. Diaries reviewing Iowa politics in 2009 will come soon.

One thing struck me while compiling this post: on all of the House bills I covered here during 2009, Democrats Leonard Boswell, Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack voted the same way. That was a big change from 2007 and 2008, when Blue Dog Boswell voted with Republicans and against the majority of the Democratic caucus on many key bills.

No federal policy issue inspired more posts last year than health care reform. Rereading my earlier, guardedly hopeful pieces was depressing in light of the mess the health care reform bill has become. I was never optimistic about getting a strong public health insurance option through Congress, but I thought we had a chance to pass a very good bill. If I had anticipated the magnitude of the Democratic sellout on so many aspects of reform in addition to the public option, I wouldn’t have spent so many hours writing about this issue. I can’t say I wasn’t warned (and warned), though.

Links to stories from January through June 2009 are after the jump. Any thoughts about last year’s political events are welcome in this thread.

After becoming chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa in January, Matt Strawn “hired one of Iowa’s most seasoned GOP organizers,” Jeff Boeyink, as executive director. Boeyink didn’t last long in the position, though, because Terry Branstad lured him away to run his upcoming gubernatorial campaign.

On Saturday the Republican State Central Committee hired Boeyink’s replacement. Jim Anderson worked in Iowa last year, running the Republican National Committee’s “Victory” program. Most recently Anderson was deputy political director at the RNC. Earlier this year he was a media contact person for the American Issues Project. Ed Failor, Jr., head of Iowans for Tax Relief, is a board member of the American Issues Project, a political advocacy group that ran controversial ads against Barack Obama during the presidential campaign.

I can’t say I was too impressed by the Republican turnout operation in Iowa last year. It remains to be seen whether Anderson has the skills to continue the organizational work started by Boeyink at the Iowa GOP.

This thread is for anything that’s on your mind this weekend.

After the jump I’ve posted links about Christian Fong, Sarah Palin, House district 1 and Kim Lehman to get things rolling.

Not long ago I noted that Republicans are not even considering a socially moderate candidate to challenge Dave Loebsack in Iowa’s most Democratic-leaning Congressional district.

Now some members of the Republican National Committee have the bright idea of cutting off party support for any candidate, anywhere, who strays too far from conservative dogma.

I knew some conservatives were crazy, but I didn’t know they were that crazy.

The Iowa Christian Alliance, headed by Republican National Committeeman Steve Scheffler, is facing a Federal Election Commission complaint over contributions allegedly run through West Hill United Methodist Church of Burlington. Morris Hurd is pastor of that church and also serves as board president and treasurer of the Iowa Christian Alliance.

The Iowa Christian Alliance is a 501(c)4 non-profit organization, meaning that it can engage in political advocacy on issues, but donations to the group are not tax-deductible. Many houses of worship, including West Hill United Methodist Church, are 501(c)3 non-profits, to which donations are tax-deductible. However, 501(c)3 groups may not engage in political advocacy.

The AP’s Mike Glover summarized the FEC complaint filed last week by Stacey Cargill of West Des Moines:

The complaint charges that Iowa Christian Alliance officials solicited money from potential donors, instructing them to send the money to Hurd’s church, making it tax-deductible. Donations were made with the understanding they would be forwarded to the alliance, the complaint said. […]

In a phone interview, Des Moines lawyer and GOP activist Ted Sporer described a similar process to The Associated Press. He said he wrote two checks to the church.

“The facts are, I was told that if I were to write a check to this church, I would get credit for being a sponsor at Christian Alliance events,” said Sporer. “I was advised that if I wrote the check to the church I would be credited.”

Hurd did not dispute that churches offered financial support to Iowa Christian Alliance.

“There are churches and ministries in Iowa that have supported the ICA and have occasionally contributed to our nonpartisan voter education effort, including voter registration and nonpartisan voter guides,” said Hurd. “They are fully within their right to do so under both the Internal Revenue code and the First Amendment.”

Scheffler told Glover that Cargill “is not dealing with a full deck of cards […] The woman is a troublemaker. She attacks everybody and anybody.”

Cargill filed a previous FEC complaint against the Iowa Christian Alliance, alleging the group allowed a woman to use its office space and database to support presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The FEC rejected that charge in February of this year.

Politico's Ben Smith posted a list of conservative House Democrats who will be targeted by a new RNC radio ad on healthcare. The list includes IA-03's Leonard Boswell.

Text of the ad:

Most Americans agree. It’s time to take action to reform our healthcare system. But the dangerous experiment President Obama and the Democrats in Congress want just can’t be the right answer. The question is what Congressman Boswell will do.

Look at their record. The stimulus package cost us hundreds of billions without creating new jobs. The national debt has more than doubled.

If Barack Obama and the Democrats get their way, the Federal Government will make the decisions about your health care. And, their plan costs a trillion dollars we don’t have. You have to pay a new tax to keep your private insurance. It’s too much, too fast.

Call Congressman Boswell at 202-225-3121, that’s 202-225-3121 and tell him to say no to this dangerous experiment.

Of course, the quote “Most Americans agree. It's time to take action to reform our healthcare system” is not followed by any Republican proposal or idea to actually fix healthcare. I hope Boswell doesn't cave on this, and it's heartening to know that he still supports a public option. Boswell's support is an apparent break with other members of the Blue Dog Coalition, whose opposition to a public option was deconstructed in this Paul Krugman article yesterday.

UPDATE: I had no idea while I was writing this post that Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania had decided to switch to the Democratic Party–yet another sign that moderates have no place in the GOP.

The day the Iowa Supreme Court announced its unanimous decision in Varnum v Brien, noneed4thneed wrote on his Twitter feed,

All chances for moderate Republicans to get elected in Iowa were dashed today. Social conservatives run Republican Party of Iowa now.

Now that the 2009 legislative session has ended with no action to overturn the Iowa Supreme Court, and same-sex marriages are a reality, I am even more convinced that noneed4thneed is right.

A few thoughts on the Republican Party’s internal conflicts are after the jump.

A funny post by Paul Rosenberg at Open Left pointed me to this post by Greg Sargent:

The Republican National Committee, under new chairman  Michael Steele, has quietly killed an ambitious plan to create the Center for Republican Renewal, a big in-house RNC think tank intended to develop new policies and ideas in order to take the party in a new direction, a Republican official who was directly informed of the decision by RNC staff tells me.

The Center’s goal was to help the GOP reclaim the mantle of the “party of ideas,” as RNC officials glowingly announced in December, and the decision to scrap it has some Republicans, including allies of former RNC chair Mike Duncan, its creator, wondering how precisely the RNC intends to generate the new ideas necessary to change course and renew itself.

Rosenberg mocks Steele’s apparent decision to give up on making the GOP the “party of ideas,” but I think Steele is smart not to waste money on this project. As I’ve written before, I share Matthew Yglesias’s view that the time for Republicans to implement effective new ideas was when they were in power.

Whether the Republicans come back in 2010 or 2012 has little to do with their ability to generate new ideas and everything to do with how Democrats govern.

If Democrats fail to deliver on big promises, the pendulum will swing back. If Democratic leaders succeed, no think-tank generated “new Republican ideas” will prevent a political realignment in our favor.

If only we could explain this concept to the Democrats in the U.S. Senate who are eager to strip from the stimulus bill the government spending that would help the economy by creating jobs (school reconstruction) or increasing consumer spending (more money for food stamps). Those same so-called “centrist” Democrats favor leaving in tax cuts that provide much less “bang for the buck” (tax credits for business, fixing the alternative minimum tax).

In the name of bipartisanship and compromise, Democrats in the Senate may approve a stimulus bill that won’t work. That will do more to revive the Republican Party than the think tank Michael Steele axed. Even if a handful of Senate Republicans vote for the stimulus, Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats will pay the price if the economy continues to decline.

President Obama deserves much of the blame for the sad turn the stimulus debate has taken. His negotiating strategy was deeply flawed, as debcoop and Theda Skocpol have explained. He should have started the debate on the stimulus with a much higher dollar number and a clear statement that he would not accede to failed Republican ideology.

I’ve noticed on these stimulus threads that some commenters think Obama would be acting too much like George W. Bush if he applied his political capital toward crafting a strong Democratic (rather than bipartisan) stimulus bill, and shaming a few Republicans into going along. I disagree. The most important thing for Obama is to pass a bill that will help the economy. Voters won’t give him points on style if the economy is still lousy in 2010 and 2012.

Bush’s mistake was not being partisan, but using his political capital to push through policies that failed miserably. If he had rammed bills through Congress that boosted our economy, improved the environment, kept our national debt from exploding and didn’t get us bogged down in an expensive war, he might have laid the groundwork for Republican realignment while his approval ratings were still very high.

The Republican National Committee elected Michael Steele of Maryland as its new chairman today.

He was far from a consensus choice and only obtained a majority of RNC members on the sixth ballot.  Steele is a former lieutenant governor of Maryland and a frequent “talking head” on news analysis shows. He is black and pulled a significant share of the African-American vote in his losing bid for the U.S. Senate in 2006. On the other hand, he seemed to run away from the Republican label during that campaign. I don’t see how other GOP candidates could pull that off.

Iowa RNC Committeeman Steve Scheffler and Committeewoman Kim Lehman both supported South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson, who turned out to be Steele’s toughest rival today.  Don’t ask me why Republicans who presumably want to start winning elections again would want the party’s leader to be a southerner who was in an all-white country club when the GOP is looking more like a regional party than ever before and the Democratic president (who happens to be black) is wildly popular.  

Anyway, Scheffler and Lehman didn’t just prefer a different candidate for RNC chair, they went on record criticizing Steele:

Though the pro-life and pro-gun Steele built a conservative record in his home state, the former Maryland lieutenant governor’s one-time affiliation with the Republican Leadership Council, which religious conservatives view as hostile to their agenda, remains a deal breaker in some sectors of the committee.

“That is an organization that created itself for the purpose of eliminating a very important part of the Republican Party and its family values,” said Iowa Committeewoman Kim Lehman, who supports South Carolina Republican Party Chair Katon Dawson’s campaign. “Michael Steele crossed over a serious line.”

“In that field, the only one that would be my number six out of six choice would be Michael Steele,” said Iowa Committeeman Steve Scheffler, citing Steele’s “past deep involvement with the Republican Leadership Council.”

“They partnered with groups like Planned Parenthood,” said Scheffler, who joined Lehman in endorsing Dawson. “In my view, you don’t lend your name to a group if you don’t agree with them.”

It’s fine by me if Lehman and Scheffler want to keep alienating Republican moderates, but I hope their open hostility to Steele doesn’t jeopardize Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status in 2012.

Getting back to the RNC competition, I was surprised that former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell turned out not to be a serious contender, despite lining up a long list of endorsements from conservative intellectuals. He dropped out after the fourth ballot today and endorsed Steele.

With Steele and Blackwell back in the news this month I’ve really missed Steve Gilliard, who used to write hilarious posts about them in 2006.

UPDATE: Holy cow. Dawson explains the roots of his political views. It basically comes down to being mad that the government desegregated his school when he was 15. Just the guy to give the GOP a more tolerant, inclusive image!

Apparently Republican Party of Iowa chairman Matt Strawn endorsed the outgoing RNC chairman, Mike Duncan, earlier this week. Conservative blogger Iowans Rock doesn’t understand why anyone would want to “reward failure” by keeping the same guy in charge of the party.

However, Krusty says Strawn backed Dawson today. That must have been after Duncan withdrew from the race. Krusty is somewhat concerned about Iowa remaining first in the presidential nominating process. One of Krusty’s commenters says Lehman worked the phones to discourage other RNC members from supporting Steele.

SECOND UPDATE: Strawn, Scheffler and Lehman have only praise for Steele in their official statements:

RPI Chairman Matt Strawn:

“I am excited to work with Chairman Steele to advance our principled agenda, rebuild our party from the grassroots up, and elect Republicans all across Iowa.  I am also encouraged by my conversations with Chairman Steele regarding Iowa’s First in the Nation presidential status. I will work closely with him to ensure Iowa retains its leading role for the 2012 caucus and beyond”

National Committeeman Steve Scheffler:

“It is a new day. I am thrilled that our newly elected national party chairman, Michael Steele, is going to lead us to once again becoming the majority party–based on enunciating our winning conservative message, a 50 state strategy, and perfecting our technological and fundraising prowess.”

National Committeewoman Kim Lehman:

“With sincere honor, I support and congratulate Chairman Steele.  I look forward to working with him in the defense of families, our liberties and the security of our country.  Chairman Steele has committed, with great clarity, his ability to bring this party back to its greatness, which transcends politics.”

I missed this Daily Kos diary by Bryan Lefwitz a few days ago. It featured this You Tube containing the audio from a robocall paid for by the McCain/Palin campaign and the Republican National Committee:

Apparently the robocall was hitting answering machines in eastern Iowa on Saturday, the same day John McCain held a rally in Davenport.

Lefwitz’s diary also shows a four-page direct-mail piece about the Iowa floods, which was paid for by the RNC and authorized by McCain/Palin. Click over to see this disgraceful attempt to politicize Congress’s response to the flooding. One page shows a small house submerged in several feet of floodwater, alongside these words:

IOWANS NEEDED OUR HELP

But Barack Obama and His Democrat

Congress Went On Vacation

A pathetic and desperate move from a candidate who trails Obama by more than 11 points in Iowa, according to the pollster.com polling average.

Anyway, as Daily Kos user JR reminds us, it was McCain who enjoyed birthday cake with George W. Bush while levees were breaching in New Orleans three years ago.

Are any other candidates (from either party) using images of the flooding or flood-related rhetoric in their campaigns? Post a comment or send me an e-mail if you know of any examples.

Also, feel free to share your thoughts on a question Josh Marshall posed recently: after this election, will McCain ever apologize for the way he campaigned?  

Think Progress published a good summary of “What Conservatives Ignored” at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. Click over for all the analysis and supporting links. Key excerpts:

THE ECONOMY: The American public views the struggling economy as the most important issue facing the country. But as AFP observed, “The economy may be the number one issue in the White House race, but the Republican National Convention has yet to dwell on the troubles of Americans trying to make ends meet.” On Wednesday, CNBC said its reporters were “darned to find much at all” about the economy in the convention speeches. In fact, housing was mentioned just once and the term “middle-class” was used only twice. […]

HEALTH CARE: At a town hall event last month, McCain declared, “There is a health care crisis in America. We would be, if it were not for the energy crisis, we’d be talking a lot more about health care issues.” But despite skyrocketing health care costs and millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans, nearly every prominent speaker at the Republican National Convention ignored this crisis. […]

GLOBAL WARMING: […] Republicans also ignored the obvious link between global warming and the increasing intensity of storms: the terms “global warming” and “climate change” were each mentioned just once. A new study published in the journal Nature this week found that “the strongest of hurricanes and typhoons have become even stronger over the past two and a half decades.” […] Despite McCain’s claims that he believes global warming is real, the GOP platform — which McCain has promised to run on — is loaded with caveats about the uncertainty of science and the need to ‘resist no-growth radicalism’ in taking on climate change.” […]

Speaking of what the Republicans didn’t talk about, watch this fantastic clip from a Joe Biden event yesterday. Partial transcript for those who don’t click over:

But, I’ll tell you, it’s not so much of what I heard in the Republican convention. When you heard John speak last night.  It’s not so much what I heard, when I heard part of what the Governor had to say, the vice presidential candidate.  It’s what I didn’t hear.

(Applause)

THE SILENCE – THE SILENCE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WAS DEAFENING.  IT WAS DEAFENING.  ON JOBS, ON HEALTH CARE, ON ENVIRONMENT, ON ALL THE THINGS THAT MATTER TO THE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS I GREW UP IN.  DEAFENING!

(Standing Ovation)

Ladies and gentlemen, THEIR AMERICA IS NOT THE AMERICA I LIVE IN. THEY SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN I SEE.

Ladies and gentlemen, literally, those of you, I can’t swear to this because I didn’t see every bit of every speech. But I asked my staff to check. Do any of you recall either candidate on the Republican ticket utter the phrase, middle class?

Crowd: No!

Biden: Did any of you hear them utter the phrase, health care and how we’re going to help?

Crowd: No!

Biden: Did you hear them talk about aid to get kids to college?

Crowd: No!

Biden: Did you hear them talk about aid to education?

Crowd: No!

Biden: Did you hear them putting more cops on the street to make us safer?

Crowd: No!

Biden: I didn’t hear a thing, a thing, about any of the things that matter to the lives of the people of my hometown of Scranton….

Rick Davis, John’s campaign manager, said two days into the convention, he said “this election is not about issues.”  That’s what he said.  And everything I saw at the convention demonstrated that.

It was about how well placed — and boy she is good — how a left jab can be stuck pretty nice.  It’s about how Barack Obama is such a bad guy.

It’s about how in fact, how in fact, they got great quips.  Man, they’re like the kids you know when you went to school and you were very proud of the new belt or the shoes you had, and there was always one kid in the class who said, “oh, are they your brother’s?”

Crowd: Yeah.

Remember that kid?  That’s what this is reminding me of.  “Oh, I love your dress, was that your mother’s?”

You know what I’m talking about.

What do you talk about, when you have nothing to say?!

What do you talk about when you CANNOT EXPLAIN THE LAST EIGHT YEARS OF FAILURE?!

(Standing Ovation)

What do you talk about?!  What do you talk about?!

You talk about the other guy.

Speaking of McCain’s acceptance speech (transcript here), I didn’t think it was well-written. If there are any aspiring speechwriters out there, you want to avoid drafting passages like this:

I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them. I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them. I will cut government spending. He will increase it.

My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate them. My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.

The crowd kept interrupting with boos after McCain’s description of what Obama would do. It came across as very negative.

These contrasts should have been flipped around so that the crowd kept interrupting McCain with applause after he compared his opponent’s plans with his own ideas. You want television viewers to see the audience repeatedly cheering the nominee.

A whole lot of television viewers saw McCain: Nielsen estimates that he drew a slightly bigger television audience than Obama did when speaking at Invesco field in Denver. Sarah Palin’s speech on Wednesday was watched by almost as many people.

NCDem Amy brings you the video of Rachel Maddow daring to call Republican lying what it is.

Speaking of lying, a new ad from McCain and the Republican National Committee says Obama is the candidate who would bring you “more of the same.”

If you were wondering why McCain started talking in front of a green screen on Thursday night, it’s because he was standing in front the grass at the bottom of a huge photo. It turned out to be Walter Reed Middle School in California (presumably they had intended to use Walter Reed Medical Center, where wounded soldiers are treated, as a backdrop).

Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla resident who knows Palin well, wrote this piece about her that has become a viral e-mail.

Here’s another piece about Palin by a longtime resident of Alaska.

I’m with this guy: when it comes to Palins, I’ll take Michael Palin of Monty Python. (No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!)

UPDATE: Reacting to McCain’s repeated promises to “fight” in his acceptance speech, Senator Barbara Boxer of California notes that she has seen McCain fight many times: against raising the minimum wage, against equal pay for equal work, against access to birth control …

The schedule for the evening is here. They will show the Sarah Palin biographical video during prime time, after Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and before former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, the video about John McCain, and Cindy McCain’s introduction of her husband.

It won’t have the same impact as if they had shown it before Palin introduced herself to 37 million viewers. We owe Rudy Giuliani and the chanting crowd a big thank you for running late last night.

Palin’s speech seems to have fired up the Democratic base as well as the Republicans. Barack Obama is rumored have raised nearly $10 million in the past 24 hours.

Chatter away. I’ll be watching the repeat of the proceedings later tonight and will post updates then.

UPDATE: Talking Points Memo has the full text of McCain’s speech.

Also at TPM, Josh Marshall’s liveblog of McCain’s speech is hilarious.

Shamelessly, the producers of tonight’s events thought it was a good idea to show a “9/11 tribute video” with graphic footage. You can watch the video here if you have the stomach for it.

Also, McCain started speaking at exactly 9:11 pm central time.

Blogger plf515, who survived the World Trade Center attack, posted his outraged commentary here.

I’m not a big fan of Keith Olbermann, but this time he got it exactly right:

“If at this late date any television networt had of its own accord showed that much video tape and that much graphic video tape of 911, and I speak as somebody who lost a few friends there, it, we, would be rightly eviscerated at all quarters perhaps by the Republican party itself for exploiting the memories of the dead and perhaps even for trying to evoke that pain again. If you reacted to that video tape the way I did, I apologize. It is a subject of great pain for many of us still and was probably not appropriate to be shown.”

SECOND UPDATE: I saw most of McCain’s speech on the repeat. He never said “George Bush”–just one reference to “the president,” “Laura Bush,” and “the 41st president.” Will people buy the way he is running away from the Republican Party’s record of failure? I have no idea.

A few things toward the end struck me as odd. Here is the last part of his speech:

I’m not running for president because I think I’m blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need. My country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God.

If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you’re disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist in our Armed Forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier. Because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself.

I’m going to fight for my cause every day as your President. I’m going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank Him: that I’m an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on earth, and with hard work, strong faith and a little courage, great things are always within our reach. Fight with me. Fight with me.

Fight for what’s right for our country.

Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children’s future.

Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.

Stand up for each other; for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. Nothing is inevitable here. We’re Americans, and we never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.

Thank you, and God Bless you.

When McCain started talking about being grateful to his country for “saving” him, I was taken aback, because I thought that might offend Christians who think only Jesus saves. But McCain got around to thanking God a minute later, so I don’t think that was a gaffe.

To my ear there was a bit of a sneer in his voice as he delivered the line about not running for president “because I think I’m blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need.” I also sensed a rebuke to Obama in McCain’s line about how “nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself.”

McCain spent a large part of this speech defining himself as a servant to his country. Although he nodded to Obama’s achievement at one point, it seems clear that he will continue to depict Obama as a celebrity whose campaign is all about himself.

But look what he said at the very end:

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. Nothing is inevitable here. We’re Americans, and we never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.

Sounds like McCain is worried about Republicans resigning themselves to Obama’s inevitable history-making victory. It was strange to hear him acknowledge that pessimism about his chances at what should have been the climax of his speech.

THIRD UPDATE: This part of the speech was drafted poorly:

I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them. I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them. I will cut government spending. He will increase it.

My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate them. My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.

The crowd kept interrupting with boos after McCain’s description of what Obama would do. It came across as very negative.

These contrasts should have been flipped around so that the crowd kept interrupting McCain with applause after he contrasted his opponent’s plans with his own ideas. You want television viewers to see the audience repeatedly cheering the nominee.

I really have no idea how Alaska Governor Sarah Palin went over last night with voters who are not already strongly committed Republicans. I will reserve judgment until we see the next round of polls from must-hold states for John McCain, such as Ohio, Virginia and Colorado.

Huffington Post reported on the reaction from focus groups of married and unmarried supporters of Hillary Clinton. I recommend reading the whole article, but here’s an excerpt:

First, women in both groups were impressed with Palin’s speaking ability and poise. But they were hardly convinced that she was qualified to be vice president, or that she truly represented the “change” they were looking for, especially in light of what was deemed an overly harsh “sarcasm” pervading her address. […]

In the “married” group, when one attendee kicked off the discussion by saying “she’s a good speaker, and a crowd pleaser,” the rest of the room articulated their agreement. “I didn’t expect to be as impressed as I was,” said another respondent. But then another woman added: “Once she started mudslinging, I thought, it’s the same old crap as other politicians. McCain used her to get the women’s vote. And she’s using McCain.”

“Thank you,” another woman responded. “That really upset me; there was no need for that. It was snippy.”

The unmarried group also voiced similar objections to the harsh, partisan edge of Palin’s remarks. “I’m not impressed with her at all as a person,” one said, citing her “finger pointing” and general sarcasm after the group had generally agreed that she was a talented public speaker.

Natasha Chart, who grew up in a conservative, religious family, posted a fascinating commentary on last night’s proceedings at MyDD, complete with King James Bible quotations. She notes that

Jesus didn’t ask the faithful to give good speeches. He didn’t ask of them that they should be from small towns, or some certain geographic region. He asked that they do something real, something material, to lighten the loads of their fellow travelers in this life.

Marc Ambinder thinks Palin may have just made Barack Obama “yesterday’s news”:

Sarah Palin is, quite simply, the celebrity of September. Interest in her will be enormous. Just as Democrats painted on Barack Obama’s blank canvass in January and February of 2007, Republicans and independents will get the chance to fill in their view of Gov. Palin. She’s the new thing. The object of curiosity. The press and the larger media will obsess over her and her family and her life.

TruthMatters thinks the Republicans lost a huge opportunity when they cut the biographical video on Palin out of last night’s program:

First they lead into her with Romney and Rudy, basically putting the country on notice, We Are Republicans And We Mean Business.

They GOP is basically telling us now, that the culture wars are back and they mean it.

Then they go into the prime time hour, the thing millions of American’s are going to see, is nothing but Rudy and Palin non-stop attacking democrats and anyone who is NOT a Republican.

And Rudy really screwed it up, because he ran long and they didn’t play her video. Her Video was suppose to make America fall in love with her, anyone remember, Michelle’s, Hillary’s, Joes, and Obama’s from last week? They NEEDED that video tonight to introduce her, espeically if this was how she was going to come out. She gave no substance, nothing but attacks, she showed us she was a hard right Republican, and she means business.

Now her base loved it. she is getting rave reviews from the right. This from redstate.com says it all “Sarah Palin. An Amazing, Historic, Epic Win.” but here is the problem. In their sheer hubris is all I can say, they seem to think that they are still the majority in this country. What they are ignoring is they are turning off every non-republican in this country. Since the convention and Sarah’s introduction, Obama has taken the lead in independents and increased his Democratic numbers.

The GOP has seem to have forgotten that Sarah was suppose to reach out to independents and the frustrated Hillary supporters, because there aren’t enough GOP voters anymore their party numbers are down. but instead they are now stuck with the 2004 strategy of excite the base and get out to vote.

For a “real vetting roundup” on Palin, read this post by georgia10.

Kos notes that the Republican convention is drawing fewer television viewers than the GOP convention four years ago and a far smaller audience than the Democratic convention drew last week. CORRECTION: the latest ratings show Palin drew almost as large an audience last night as Obama did last Thursday.

I still think selecting Palin was a huge mistake for McCain, whose main talking point against Obama was that he lacked sufficient experience to lead.

Also, give me a break from the talking point about Palin having “more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined,” as if Obama and Biden’s in-depth knowledge and experience crafting federal policy is worth less than being a small-town mayor and serving half a term as governor.

Watch this great clip from last night’s Daily Show, which juxtaposes Karl Rove on Palin’s tremendous experience with what Rove said about Virginia Governor Tim Kaine a few weeks ago. Kaine has served as governor for longer than Palin, managing a state much larger than Alaska. Before that Kaine was lieutenant governor of Virginia, and before that he was mayor of Richmond, a much larger city than Wasilla, Alaska. Jon Stewart noted that “Karl Rove is bitterly divided on the experience issue.”

After the jump I have posted the text of a mass e-mail from Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe. He specifically takes Palin and Rudy Giuliani to task for mocking Obama’s experience as a community organizer. That was certainly one of the low points of Palin’s speech, in my opinion. At least George H.W. Bush pretended to value community activists (“1000 points of light”) twenty years ago.

UPDATE: For the full text of Palin’s speech, click here.

Small-town native Mike Lux had this reaction:

while I appreciated Sarah Palin’s tribute to small-town values at one point in her speech, the values she exhibited in the rest of the speech were not the ones I recognized from the small towns I know. […]

The Sarah Palin I saw last night had a mean streak a mile wide. If me or my brothers and sisters would have been as sarcastic and demeaning to someone as Sarah Palin was last night, my mom would have sent us to our room. I know that Palin was just trying to be funny when she compared herself to a pit bull, but she was just about as nasty as one, and in the dog-loving families I know from small-town America, people generally prefer dogs that will play well with kids and neighbors. And the community organizers that Palin made so much fun of [are] the folks who organized the potluck suppers at church and the Lions Club charities, the ones who really made those small towns go.

Lux should understand that when Palin made fun of community organizers, she wasn’t talking about people who run church potlucks in small towns. I tend to agree with billmon:

Used the way the GOP speakers used the words tonight (i.e. with a sneer), community = ghetto and organizer = activist.

It essentially was a coded way of pointing out Obama’s work in, with and for the black community (see? even I’m doing it) on the South Side of Chicago. Also the fact that his work involved helping low-income people stand up for their legal rights, as opposed to a GOP-sanctioned “real” job like business owner or career military officer (or moose hunter.) They were trying to put Obama back on the same level as Jesse Jackson — i.e., the black protest candidate — and mocking him for it.

I won’t be watching in prime time, but I plan to watch the repeat of Sarah Palin’s speech on C-SPAN later. I expect her to bring the house down in St. Paul. Those delegates are her kind of Republican.

Chatter away about what you’ve seen and heard today. I will update later.

UPDATE: I hope John McCain runs his new Obama/Palin comparison ad in every swing state:

MSNBC’s First Read has already fact-checked this ad:

It’s important to note that there are a few misleading assertions in the ad. For one, the “Journal” that’s cited is the conservative and partisan Wall Street Journal editorial page. Two, to call Obama the Senate’s most liberal senator is dubious. (The charge comes from the National Journal ranking Obama as having the most liberal Senate voting record of 2007, but he was nowhere near the top in 2005 and 2006; it’s also worth noting that Obama missed many Senate votes in 2007, so that ranking is a bit skewed.) And three, the charge that Obama “gave big oil billions in subsidies and giveaways” is misleading. (According to nonpartisan fact-checkers, the 2005 energy bill the McCain camp is referring to actual resulted in a net tax INCREASE on oil companies.)

Speaking of fact checks, First Read notes that Mike Huckabee was wrong to assert in his RNC speech that Sarah Palin received more votes running for mayor of Wasilla than Joe Biden received running for president. First Read says nearly 80,000 Americans voted for Biden for president.

I suspect that estimate is low. Probably somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of Iowa Democrats stood up for Biden at their precinct caucuses, although he only ended up with 1 percent of the delegates because of the 15 percent viability threshold. Also, Biden was not on the ballot in Michigan, but presumably some of those “uncommitted” voters preferred him.

The Democratic National Committee launched a fun website called JustMoreoftheSame.com. Check it out.

SECOND UPDATE: Democratic bloggers seem divided on whether Palin gave a great speech (to the audience she was trying to reach) or whether she was boring.

Josh Marshall had this to say about Rudy:

You’ll notice that Rudy Giuliani apparently ran too long and they had to drop the Palin mini-movie that was supposed to introduce her speech. Normally people get fired for goofs like that. They didn’t want Rudy’s blood and iron speech the day after Gustav so they bumped it until tonight. Big mistake. He positively dripped with a kind of curdled anger, the origin of which is difficult to grasp. But he actually seemed to get angrier and angrier as the speech progressed — off chopping his hands around, baring his teeth. I know the people in the hall loved it. But I think a lot of people will see it as whacked. Rancid. Curdled. Palin’s speech ended up being much more partisan than I expected. But that was added to by the fact that she had to start her speech while the auditorium was still awash in the teeth-gnashing froth ginned up by Rudy’s speech.

THIRD UPDATE: I caught most of the repeat of Rudy’s speech. I cannot imagine that helped McCain with anyone but the most hard-core Republicans. Talk about mean-spirited. All those loud “boos” from the audience made the crowd seem mean as well. And it was surreal to see Hizzoner from New York make fun of Obama for being too cosmopolitan. I agree with RF–if millions of Americans caught that speech while tuning in to see Palin, Obama will benefit.

Also, it was bizarre to have the camera cutting to Cindy McCain holding baby Trig during Rudy’s speech. Most young infants don’t like being passed around and held by total strangers.

FOURTH UPDATE: Mr. desmoinesdem and I watched the repeat of Palin. She did a lot better than Rudy, obviously. I’m sure she generated a lot of enthusiasm among the GOP base. We have no idea how that speech sounded to a typical undecided voter. Some of her culture war language and criticism of Obama sounded a little petty to me, but I’m obviously not the target audience. She lied again about opposing the Bridge to Nowhere, but will she get called on that? The visuals at the end of her holding baby Trig with the rest of her family on stage were great.

I think Obama and Biden should ignore her and focus their fire on McCain.

Anyone watching tonight?

Share your thoughts here.

Note that John Edwards, who had an extramarital affair, was banished from the Democratic convention. But Rudy Giuliani, who not only cheated on his wife but used city resources for the benefit of his mistress, and informed his wife he was divorcing her by holding a press conference, is delivering the keynote for the GOP convention.

Repeat after me: It’s ok if you’re a Republican.

Post your thoughts about today’s events. The front page of Barack Obama’s website has a link you can click to find ways to help Hurricane Gustav victims.

John McCain has seized the opportunity to distance himself from George Bush and Dick Cheney. They had been scheduled to address the GOP convention on Monday night, but those speeches have been canceled. Instead, Laura Bush and Cindy McCain will speak briefly on how Americans can help hurricane victims.

Meanwhile, McCain is touring the Gulf cost and talking about turning the Republican convention into a service event. Fits nicely with his slogan about “putting country first,” except when you realize that his visit is likely to distract the local officials trying to manage evacuation and disaster relief efforts.

He obviously doesn’t want people to remember that the day Hurricane Katrina made landfall in 2005, Bush was celebrating McCain’s birthday in Arizona.

This diary by Muzikal203 compares how McCain and Obama have reacted to Gustav and both senators’ records on matters related to Hurricane Katrina.

UPDATE: I’ve been reading some disturbing posts about police tactics in St. Paul:

A concise roundup by mcjoan is here.

Glenn Greenwald has a lot more detail, including footage of Amy Goodman, host of the Democracy Now! radio program, being arrested while covering the protests at the RNC. Greenwald observed on Monday:

Beginning last night, St. Paul was the most militarized I have ever seen an American city be, even more so than Manhattan in the week of 9/11 — with troops of federal, state and local law enforcement agents marching around with riot gear, machine guns, and tear gas cannisters, shouting military chants and marching in military formations. Humvees and law enforcement officers with rifles were posted on various buildings and balconies. Numerous protesters and observers were tear gassed and injured.

Lindsay Beyerstein wrote this piece at Firedoglake.

Open Left has published several pieces on this, including this post with photos by Matt Stoller.

It is depressing to see such an overreaction to political dissent.

But last week the Wall Street Journal made a big deal about how Barack Obama supposedly “only” raised $30 million in June.

Today Obama’s campaign revealed that it raised $52 million in June, and the Democratic National Committee raised $22 million the same month. Obama apparently has about $72 million in cash on hand, while the DNC has about $20 million in cash on hand.

At Open Left, tremayne graphed Obama’s fundraising per month this year. February was his best month; he raised $55 million then.

John McCain raised about $22 million in June, but the Republican National Committee has crushed the DNC in fundraising this year, so if you combine the RNC and McCain numbers, their side has slightly more cash on hand.

But guess what? The average donation for Obama in June was $68. That means he has a ton of small donors who are not maxed out. In fact, only $2 million of the $52 million he raised is for the general election (in other words, came from people who had already maxed out at $2,300 for the primary).

I found this analysis by Jerome Armstrong intriguing:

I believe that Obama could have raised $100M in June if that’s what they wanted to do. In fact, there may have been plans to do just that too, but they changed. Notice that just $2M was raised for the GE by Obama, they certainly could have raised a ton more money there if they had wanted, for the GE, at least $20-30M, and combined with the $74M that was raised between Obama and DNC, over $100M.

So, either the Obama camp isn’t as committed to self-funding for the GE, and might still go the route of taking the $84M in public financing (unlikely); or they are holding off their donors to give for the GE later (there are accounts of projecting a $100M month in Sept); or the Obama camp will use July and August to raise big numbers for the GE, as the decision to opt-out was made on June 19th, late in the month for fundraising plans. It could be either of these last two it seems.

Certainly Obama will not take public financing for the general. But could his campaign be deliberately holding big general-election donations off until later this summer?

Reporting a $100 million haul this fall, at the height of the campaign, could hurt Republican morale and drive a lot of media coverage about the enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans.

Maybe McCain will be forced to pick Mitt Romney for a running mate. He’s disliked by the Christian right but excellent at bringing in cash. Romney-skeptic Jeff Angelo is re-thinking the wisdom of this course for the GOP nominee.

Put your thoughts and suppositions about the presidential candidates’ fundraising in the comment thread.