So what if the next Iowa caucuses are nearly four years away? I’m on Public Policy Polling’s wavelength: 2016 Iowa caucus polling is interesting, even if it doesn’t mean much now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Last night the U.S. Senate voted 60 to 40 to move forward with debate on the health insurance reform bill. All senators who caucus with Democrats voted for cloture, and all Republicans voted against. The breakthrough came on Saturday, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid secured Senator Ben Nelson’s support with extra money for Medicaid in Nebraska and new language on abortion.

At Daily Kos mcjoan published a good summary of what’s in the latest version of the bill.

Reid reportedly promised Nelson a “limited conference” on this bill, meaning that very few changes will be made to the Senate version. However, it’s far from clear that the House of Representatives will approve the Senate’s compromise. About two dozen House Democrats plan to vote against health care reform no matter what, meaning that it will only take 15-20 more no votes to prevent supporters from reaching 218 in the House.

Bart Stupak, lead sponsor of the amendment restricting abortion coverage in the House bill, has been working with Republicans against the Senate’s abortion language. Meanwhile, the leaders of the House pro-choice caucus have suggested the Senate language may be unconstitutional.

Even before Reid struck the final deal with Nelson, Representative Bruce Braley told the Des Moines Register, “I think the real test is going to be at the conference committee and if it doesn’t improve significantly, I think health care reform is very remote based on what I’m hearing in the House.”

Senator Tom Harkin has done several media appearances in recent days defending the Senate compromise. He seems especially pleased with the Medicaid deal for Nebraska:

The federal government is paying for the entire Medicaid expansion through 2017 for every state.

“In 2017, as you know, when we have to start phasing back from 100 percent, and going down to 98 percent, they are going to say, ‘Wait, there is one state that stays at 100?’ And every governor in the country is going to say, ‘Why doesn’t our state stay there?’” Harkin said. “When you look at it, I thought well, god, good, it is going to be the impetus for all the states to stay at 100 percent. So he might have done all of us a favor.”

Ezra Klein has posted some amazing spin this morning about how the Senate bill is “not very close to the health-care bill most liberals want. But it is very close to the health-care bill that Barack Obama promised.” Sorry, no. Obama campaigned on a health care plan that would control costs and include a public insurance option, drug re-importation, and letting Medicare negotiate for lower drug prices. Obama campaigned against an individual mandate to purchase insurance and an excise tax on insurance benefits.

Those of you still making excuses for Obama should listen to what Senator Russ Feingold said yesterday:

“I’ve been fighting all year for a strong public option to compete with the insurance industry and bring health care spending down,” Feingold said Sunday in a statement. “Unfortunately, the lack of support from the administration made keeping the public option in the bill an uphill struggle.”

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe was about as unprincipled and two-faced during this process as White House officials were. She voted for the Senate Finance Committee’s bill in October and had suggested her main objection to Reid’s compromise was the inclusion of a public health insurance option. Yet Snowe remained opposed to the bill even after the public option was removed last week. Because of her stance, Reid cut the deal with Nelson. The supposedly pro-choice Snowe could have prevented the restrictions on abortion coverage from getting into the bill if she had signed on instead.

Speaking of Republicans, the Iowa Republican posted this rant by TEApublican: “Nebraska And Huckabee Respond To Ben ‘Benedict’ Nelson’s Christmas Senate Sellout.” If you click over, be prepared to encounter mixed metaphors and misunderstandings about what this “reform” does. Still, the rant is a good reminder of how Republicans will still scream about government takeovers even though corporate interests got everything they wanted out of the bill.

I’m likely to ignore future e-mails from MoveOn.org Political Action after reading the last two appeals they’ve sent me. They are raising money off the health care reform battle while absolving President Obama from blame for the pitiful state of the Senate bill.

Excerpts from the MoveOn.Org appeals and some commentary are after the jump.

Longtime Bleeding Heartland readers know that I’ve always worried Barack Obama would leave too many U.S. troops in Iraq for too long. When he decided to stick with George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense, some analysts argued that Robert Gates would give Obama cover to withdraw from Iraq, but I felt it was more likely that Gates would give Obama cover not to withdraw from Iraq, at least not fully.

This week President Obama announced his plans for Iraq. Supposedly “combat operations” will end by August 2010, meaning that the withdrawal will take 18 months rather than 16 months, as Obama promised during the campaign. My concern is not the extra two months, but Obama’s decision to leave a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 in Iraq after August 2010. That sounds like too large a contingent to me and to many Congressional Democrats.

I suppose I should be grateful that Obama isn’t following the advice of Colin Kahl, who headed his Iraq working group during the campaign. Kahl has advocated leaving 60,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq for years (see also here).

Seeing the glass half full, Chris Bowers is pleased that Obama says all U.S. military will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011:

In September of 2007, President Obama refused to promise to remove all troops from Iraq by January 20th, 2013. Now, he has promised to remove them all by December 31st, 2011. That is a positive shift.

This is huge for no residual forces proponents. Now that President Obama has made this pledge, in public, it will be difficult for him to go back on it. This is especially the case since turning back on a promise with a deadline of December 31st, 2011, means violating a pledge during 2012–the year President Obama will be running for re-election. Anti-war proponents need to be prepared to raise holy hell during 2012 if this promise is not kept.

It is frustrating that it took the Iraqi government, rather than internal anti-war pressure, to finally secure a no residual troop promise from the American government (and they actually succeeded in wringing it out of the Bush administration, something Democrats were entirely unable to achieve). Still, as someone who has opposed the Iraq war for more than six years, and who been has writing about the need for no residual American military forces in Iraq for more than two years, any promise of no residual forces from the American government, backed up by a binding, public document like the Status of Forces Agreement, it an extremely welcome development no matter how it was secured.

The Iraq war is going to end. No residual troops after 2011.

I am concerned that some excuse will be found by then to push back the deadline. (Seeing John McCain and other Republicans praise Obama’s plans for Iraq does not reassure me.) I have little confidence that the anti-war movement would raise “holy hell” during a presidential election year if Obama backs off on this promise.

But I am biased on this point, because I’ve never believed in Obama as a great anti-war hero.

So, I’m opening up the floor to the Bleeding Heartland community. Are you ecstatic, optimistic, skeptical, or disappointed with Obama’s Iraq policy? Do you believe he will stick to the deadlines he outlined this week for the end of combat operations and the withdrawal of all residual troops?

Feel free to discuss our Afghanistan policy in this thread too. Obama plans to increase the number of U.S. troops there, but Senator Russ Feingold and some others are wondering whether more troops will help us achieve our stated mission.

When a member of the U.S. House of Representatives dies, retires or takes another job, a special election is held in the district. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin plans to introduce a constitutional amendment requiring special elections to fill vacant U.S. Senate seats as well:

“The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end.  In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators.  They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people.  I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute.  As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.”

Feingold explained the rationale for his “new effort to empower the people” in this Daily Kos diary.

Since the November election, four Democratic governors have appointed new U.S. senators. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is in particular disgrace for allegedly trying to profit personally from the appointment to fill Barack Obama’s seat. After a convoluted chain of events, Blagojevich was eventually able to get his choice, Roland Burris, seated in the U.S. Senate. (Jane Hamsher wrote the best piece I’ve seen on the farce: I want to play poker with Harry Reid.)

New York Governor David Paterson didn’t cover himself with glory either during the past two months. I agree with Chris Cillizza:

Is it possible that this process could have played out any more publicly or messily? It’s hard to imagine how. Paterson’s final pick — [Kirsten] Gillibrand — is entirely defensible but the way he handled everything that happened between when Clinton was nominated and today cloud that picture. Will Paterson ultimately be a winner for picking an Upstate woman to share the ticket with him in 2010? Maybe. But, today it’s hard to see him as anything other than a loser.

The other two Senate vacancies filled by governors stirred up less controversy nationwide, but are also problematic in some respects. Governor Ruth Ann Minner of Delaware replaced Joe Biden with picked a longtime Biden staffer who has no plans to run in 2010. I love competitive primaries, but in this case Minner was mainly trying to clear the path for Biden’s son Beau Biden, the attorney general of Delaware who could not be appointed to the Senate now because of a deployment in Iraq.

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter passed up various elected officials with extensive campaign experience and a clear position on the issues to appoint Michael Bennet, who had very little political experience and virtually no public record on any national issues. (Colorado pols were stunned by the choice.)

Discussing Feingold’s proposed amendment, John Deeth seems concerned mainly with the prospect of a governor appointing someone from the other political party to replace a retiring senator.

For me, the fact that all four Democratic governors appointed Democrats to the vacant U.S. Senate seats is immaterial.

I can’t tell you whether Burris, Gillibrand, Kaufman or Bennet will do a good job in the Senate for the next two years, but I can assure you that none of them would have earned the right to represent their states in a competitive Democratic primary. That alone is reason to support Feingold’s constitutional amendment.

The power of incumbency is immense and will create obstacles for other Democrats who may want to challenge Gillibrand or Bennet in 2010. (Burris may be out sooner than that if Blagojevich is removed from office, but whoever his successor appoints would have the same unjustified advantage in a potential 2010 primary in Illinois.)

Special elections can be held within a few months. Let voters decide who should represent them in the Senate.

Steve King keeps adding to the multitude of reasons to elect Rob Hubler to represent Iowa’s fifth district in Congress. He is running a misleading television ad in the Sioux City market:

Friday, October 17, 2008                  

         COUNCIL BLUFFS – Rob Hubler, Democratic candidate for Congress in Iowa’s 5th district, today called on Rep. Steve King to pull his new television ad in which he falsely claims credit for “working with others” to widen Highway 20 from two lanes to four lanes.

         Following an announcement by the Iowa Department of Transportation on Tuesday that $48 million had been allocated for 11.7 miles of four-laning Highway 20, King began running a television commercial claiming credit for the funding.  All of the funding is from a special fund recently approved by the Iowa legislature and none of the funding is from federal sources.

         “Steve King taking credit for funding Highway 20 improvements would be like me taking credit for the sun coming up this morning,” said Hubler.  “Our state legislators and the Iowa Department of Transportation deserve credit for allocating the funding for Highway 20, which is long overdue,” he said.  “King had nothing to do with approving money for highway improvements but, three weeks before an election, he is desperate to show some accomplishments in Congress, by taking credit where it is not due.”

         State Sen. Steve Warnstadt of Sioux City, who has fought for funding in the Iowa legislature, said today that the legislature, “rather than wait for the promises of federal politicians to be fulfilled, worked in a bipartisan manner to not only create the funding for TIME-21, but ensured that projects like four-laning Highway 20 would be top priority for new funding.”

         “I’m pleased that the Iowa Transportation Commission did not wait for federal funds, and is using the resources provided to them by the legislature for critical projects like Highway 20,” said Sen. Warnstadt.

         In his television ad, that began running this week, King says:  “Six years ago I made a commitment to you that I would pull out all the stops to build four-lane Highway 20.  Today with the commission’s announcement, I can tell you that 46 more miles will be built within five years.  My number one transportation priority was a promise, now it’s a plan, soon it will be a reality.  We work together and we get things done.”

         In a press release issued the same day, King again took credit for the Highway 20 improvement project.  “Steve King had absolutely nothing to do with any of that funding and is shamelessly trying to take credit for it,” said Hubler.  “I suppose this is what you do when you’ve spent six years in Congress and have only a resolution encouraging people to celebrate Christmas to show for it,” he added.

         Hubler pointed out that King is unable to get anything done to help his district because he is not respected by other members of Congress, even those in his own party.  “By contrast, Rep. Leonard Boswell of Iowa has a program for Highway 34 in which he gets 20 miles paved every year,” he said.

         Hubler said that he will work with the rest of the Iowa delegation to make sure Iowa gets help with maintaining our highways and bridges.  “I will sponsor and fight for legislation to fund at least ten miles of Highway 20 widening each year until it is completed,” he said.  “If Steve King had done this, we would have 60 miles completed during his three terms in Congress.”

This press release from the Iowa Department of Transportation confirms the above comments by Hubler and State Senator Steve Warnstadt. This project is funded by the state, not by any federal appropriation.

Iowa Guy calls out the television ad as one of King’s “lies.” Here is a rough transcript that someone in the fifth district sent to me (if anyone has an official script, please send me a copy). Judge for yourself:

King: I’m Steve King. I approve this message. Six years ago I made a commitment to you that I would pull out all of the stops to build 4 lane Highway 20. Today with the commission’s announcement, I can tell you that 46 more miles will be built within five years. My number one transportation priority was a promise, now it’s a plan, soon it will be a reality. We work together and we get things done.

Voice Over: “Steve King for Congress”

King’s ad creates a false impression. Note how he refers to “the commission” without making clear that he’s talking about the Iowa Transportation Commission’s announcement regarding Highway 20. He talks about how his “promise” is now a “plan” that will soon be a “reality,” without specifying what he did to make that plan a reality (because he played no role).

I read in one of my parenting books that lying can be a form of wish fulfillment. If I had achieved as little for constituents as King has, I’d probably wish I could take credit for a popular highway project too.

Speaking of King’s record, you may recall this article the Sioux City Journal published over the summer, asking “How effective is Steve King?” (Answer: not very.) In the article, King described a “key moment” for him:

King said the extended 2007 funding debate for reauthorization of the federal State Children’s Health Insurance Program was a key moment. The measure was initially written for an increase of $35 billion, but was scaled back before being signed by President Bush in December.

King took to the House floor last fall with a sign that said the SCHIP acronym should instead stand for “Socialized Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents.”

“I do believe if you took me out of the equation, there would have been a different (funding) result,” King said.

I have a close friend (self-employed) whose family was getting health coverage through her husband’s job. He was just laid off this month. Fortunately, their kids are eligible to be added to HAWK-I (that’s the Iowa version of SCHIP) as of November 1.

Plenty of children would be going without health insurance if not for HAWK-I, and in this economy, demand for the program will probably rise significantly.

Isn’t it great that King fought to scale back the funding?

Another recent “achievement” for King was his proposal to create a commission to study the current financial crisis. Hubler had some choice words about that idea, and I’ve put his full statement after the jump. Some excerpts:

       “For six years, Steve King has supported an administration that has refused to accept responsibility or to hold anyone accountable for policies that have devastated the middle class, provided tax breaks to big oil companies, mismanaged an unnecessary war, and now caused the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression,” said Hubler.  “We don’t need to spend millions of dollars on a commission that will take months to find out what we already know; when there are no rules, and no regulators, markets do not regulate themselves.”

       “King opposed common-sense regulations designed to protect investors and consumers as his Republican-led Congress gave the Bush administration the authority to dismantle rules, allowing greedy Wall Street speculators and unscrupulous lenders free rein to engage in subprime lending with no oversight from Congress,” Hubler continued.  “Yet, instead of accepting responsibility for his part in creating this mess, King has tried to blame middle class borrowers for the collapse of the housing market,” said Hubler, referring to comments King made Saturday at a town hall meeting in Onawa.

Hubler is a strong Democrat as well as a strong candidate, which is why Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s Progressive Patriots Fund is supporting him.

Hubler can win this race if he is able to get his message to voters. He’s already been up on the radio with at least one ad, featuring former Congressman Berkley Bedell. The Hubler campaign has also produced this voter guide (pdf file) to mail district-wide. To reach more voters through direct mail and broadcast media, the campaign needs your help. Please donate today.

We have a great opportunity to take advantage of the coming Democratic wave. This post at Swing State Project notes that seats once thought safe for Republicans are becoming competitive across the country. The author names IA-05 (as well as IA-04) among the “Republican seats at severe risk of being lost or swept away in the ensuing tide.”

The Republican Party is now spending money on behalf of incumbents in some districts comparable to western Iowa in terms of partisan makeup. This recent story from Politico notes:

GOP Reps. John B. Shadegg of Arizona, Lee Terry of Nebraska, Henry Brown Jr. of South Carolina and Dan Lungren of California are all fighting for their political lives, a reversal of fortunes that has caught even the most astute campaign observers by surprise.

Markos commented on the Politico piece,

Shadegg’s AZ-03 is R+5.9.

Terry’s NE-02 is R+9.0.

Brown’s SC-01 is R+9.6

Lungren’s CA-03 is R+6.7.

Iowa’s fifth district has a partisan voting index of R+8. As I’ve written before, ten House Democrats already represent districts at least as Republican. This election will increase that number. Let’s make IA-05 one of them.

King’s third-quarter FEC filing showed a financial advantage over Hubler, but hardly an intimidating war chest. His cash on hand may not even be sufficient to run television ads across the district for the remainder of the campaign. He certainly won’t have a turnout operation to rival what Barack Obama’s campaign and the Iowa Democratic Party have going in western Iowa.

It only takes a minute to donate to Hubler’s campaign, giving him the resources to spread his message in the final weeks. Please take the time to help send a good man to Congress.

Last night the Senate passed a bailout bill that was somewhat different from the version the House rejected on Monday. The Senate vote was 74-25 (roll call here), with Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin both voting in favor.

Last week Harkin had spoken out against the original bailout proposal, so obviously he was satisfied with the changes made. (UPDATE: Harkin’s statement explaining his vote is after the jump.)

Both Barack Obama and John McCain voted for the bailout last night. Today, Obama made the economy the centerpiece of a campaign speech in Michigan. Click here to read the speech and watch video clips.

Congressional candidate Becky Greenwald, who said on Monday that she would have opposed the House version of the bailout, issued a statement urging Tom Latham to support the Senate version when it comes back to the House:

“I strongly encourage Tom Latham to support this new version of the financial rescue bill. The Senate version of the bill integrated constructive changes including temporarily raising the FDIC insurance caps, renewable energy tax credits and fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax to exempt middle-income taxpayers. These provisions go a long way to support working families in the 4th District, who were forgotten in the original bill.  

“I still think more needs to be done to address the underlying problem of keeping families in their homes, but it is clear by the impending unavailability of credit, we need to take action now. I am encouraged by the modifications to this bill. I hope the House will embrace the modified bill. I encourage Tom Latham to vote in favor of this bill and take this important step in addressing our financial crisis.”

Congressional candidate Rob Hubler, who said on Monday that he would have voted for the bailout in the House, posted this statement on the front page of his website:

“The failed economic policies of the Bush administration, supported consistently by Steve King, combined with the lack of common-sense regulations and oversight by Congress has led us to this financial train-wreck.

“Six years ago, the Bush administration sought authorization to use military force to invade Iraq.  We acted too quickly and became mired down in war.  Today, it is asking for authorization to use financial force in the market place.  We must not make the mistake of acting too quickly without enough information, and we must address the problems of Main Street as well as Wall Street.  The revised proposal includes subsidies to support the production of ethanol and wind energy, which will be helpful to Iowa’s economy.

“By raising the insurance level from $100,000 to $250,000 for savings accounts, we will help small-town bankers survive the current financial crisis.  If the revised version of the rescue package provides that taxpayers will be paid back every dime of the billions it will take to avert an extended recession and gets money to people on Main Street, I would reluctantly vote in favor of the legislation in order to stabilize the economy so that families and businesses on Main Street are not further affected.  I am encouraged that both Senators Obama and McCain are now working toward a solution, while Steve King is still pushing failed policies, such as eliminating the capital gains taxes which favor wealthy Wall Street speculators.  Main Street doesn’t have any capital gains to pay taxes on right now.

“If I am elected to Congress. I will be a strong voice in favor of regulatory measures and vigilant oversight-unlike Steve King-to see that checks and balances are put back in place so that we never have to experience this kind of calamity again.”

Speaking of Steve King, he made news yesterday during a talk radio show. He argued that McCain was right to say the fundamentals of our economy are strong. I didn’t watch Keith Olbermann’s Countdown show last night, but apparently King earned the title of third-worst person in the world for the day.

I haven’t had a chance to read up on the specific improvements made in the Senate bailout bill. I am skeptical that this will solve the problems in the banking sector, however. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin issued this statement explaining his opposition:

“I will oppose the Wall Street bailout plan because though well intentioned, and certainly much improved over the administration’s original proposal, it remains deeply flawed. It fails to offset the cost of the plan, leaving taxpayers to bear the burden of serious lapses of judgment by private financial institutions, their regulators, and the enablers in Washington who paved the way for this catastrophe by removing the safeguards that had protected consumers and the economy since the great depression. The bailout legislation also fails to reform the flawed regulatory structure that permitted this crisis to arise in the first place. And it doesn’t do enough to address the root cause of the credit market collapse, namely the housing crisis. Taxpayers deserve a plan that puts their concerns ahead of those who got us into this mess.”

-Senator Russ Feingold, October 1, 2008

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich expects the economy to continue to worsen with or without the bailout.

The economist/blogger Bonndad wrote a piece analyzing the various bailout proposals. He concluded, “As far as I have seen, no one has offered any solution to the credit crunch that makes any sense. ”

This is an open thread for any comments related to the economy or the bailout proposals.

Senator Russ Feingold’s Progressive Patriots Fund just announced the last group of U.S. House challengers who will receive help in the form of a “Patriot Corps” organizer assigned to work for the campaign.

Rob Hubler, who is taking on Steve King in Iowa’s fifth district, made the cut. (The full list of Democratic candidates receiving Patriot Corps help is here.)

Make no mistake: this district is winnable. It does lean Republican, but Democrats hold 10 House districts that are at least as Republican as IA-05, and another 14 districts that are almost as Republican in terms of the partisan voter index.

I have a longer post coming soon on Hubler’s path to victory, but for now I recommend that you read this excellent piece on the race by DemocracyLover in NYC.

You can contribute to the Progressive Patriots Fund here or directly to the Hubler campaign here.

Come meet Rob at one of these upcoming events:

Friday, Sept. 12

2 p.m Atlantic Town Hall Meeting, Atlantic Public Library, 507 Poplar Street, Atlantic, IA

6 p.m Carroll Office Opening,

225 W. 4th St Carroll, IA

Saturday, Sept. 13

5 p.m. Rural Roundtable Discussion with Rob Hubler and Congressman Brad Carson, Pizza Ranch , 119 Albany Ave NE, Orange City, IA

Sunday, Sept. 14

Harkin Steak Fry, Indianola

Monday, Sept. 15

Union County Democrats

Farmer’s Market Dinner, McKinley Park, Creston, IA, 4 p.m.

Saturday, Sept. 20

Creston Balloon Parade

Sunday, Sept. 21

Monona County Democrats Annual Fall Rally

Onawa Community Center, 4:30 p.m.

The Senate will debate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act today. Despite the heroic efforts of Senators Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold, all signs point toward capitulation by the Democrats.

Glenn Greenwald again tells you why you should care.

Daily Kos front-pager smintheus explains why the advocates touting this new, improved version of FISA are wrong about the oversight potential of inspectors-general.

The Barack Obama supporters against the FISA bill have been organizing at an incredible pace, but he indicated last week that he will vote for the bill. How far will he go in supporting various amendments offered by Senate Democrats?

I won’t be watching C-SPAN today, but if you are, feel free to “document the atrocities” in the comments (as Atrios might say).

UPDATE: mcjoan has more detail on the key votes that will take place today.

SECOND UPDATE: The FISA bill passed 69-28, with three not voting. McCain dodged another big vote.

The roll call vote is here:

http://www.senate.gov/legislat…

No surprises from the Iowa senators: Grassley voted yes, and Harkin voted no.

Obama voted yes, as expected. Hillary voted no.

Paul Rosenberg put up a post well worth your time if you are disturbed by the House vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Key point:

MapLight.org is reporting that House Democrats who changed their vote to support Telco immunity received much more, on average than their counterparts who did not change position.  This is a group correlation, of course.  Not all those who voted for immunity received more money than those who voted against.  Indeed, 11 of those who voted for immunity received nothing at all from the three Telcos.  But the group correlation is quite strong.

Click the link to find a chart listing all 94 House Democrats who voted against retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies on March 14, but voted for the FISA bill containing immunity on June 20. (Our own Leonard Boswell is in this group). The chart shows how much money each of them received in PAC contributions from AT&T, Sprint or Verizon.

Boswell is in the middle of the pack, having received $10,000. I wouldn’t assume those contributions are the only reason he has favored the telecommunications companies’ interests over protecting constitutional rights. But he does have a long history of voting with Republicans and corporate interests rather than with the majority of House Democrats on a lot of issues.

The Des Moines Register ran a strongly-worded editorial on FISA in the Wednesday edition:

Federal law authorizing secret intercepts of international communications may need amending to account for changes in technology and behavior of terrorist groups, but the job should be put off for a new Congress and a new president next year. In the current political climate, with an election looming, the temptation is to ram something – anything – through to avoid the accusation of being weak on terrorism, even if the constitutional privacy rights of American citizens are sacrificed in the process.

That apparently motivated 105 House Democrats to go along with 188 Republicans to give President Bush what the Washington Post described as “one of the last major victories he is likely to achieve.” That, along with the administration’s last-minute decision to allow the Democrats to toss in an additional $95 billion in domestic spending in a war-appropriations bill.

That’s a pathetically small price for authorizing this president, and future presidents, to ignore the 4th Amendment restrictions on “unreasonable searches and seizures.” […]

Those are just some of the problems with the House bill. It’s hard to say how many others exist, however, because there was precious little public debate. The operations of the spying program are classified secrets, and only a select few members of Congress have been clued in on how it works. Even legal experts are struggling to decipher the bill.

This is in stark contrast to 30 years ago, when the FISA law was enacted after months of public discussion, hearings and testimony. Changing the law implicating a fundamental constitutional right mandates nothing short of that same process today.

My only quibble with this editorial is where were the Register’s reporters on this issue during the third district primary campaign?

Boswell advocated retroactive immunity for telecoms in February, then changed his position in March. In early May, there was some speculation that he had cooperated with House Republicans to get this provision back on the table.

I tried for weeks to get Boswell’s office to comment on this issue and got the runaround. Naturally, they were not going to return phone calls from a blogger supporting Ed Fallon. But the Register’s Jane Norman or Thomas Beaumont could have at least forced Boswell to clarify where he stood on FISA before Iowa Democrats voted on June 3. Why didn’t the Register’s assignment editors give this issue some space this spring?

Glenn Greenwald has been writing extensively on FISA over at Salon, and I highly recommend his latest post, Chris Dodd’s speech and a glimmer of hope for stopping the FISA bill. It’s long and includes some great quotes from Dodd and Senator Russ Feingold, as well as many other links to good commentary on this issue.

Speaking of Feingold, Josh Orton of MyDD linked to the Progressive Patriots Fund Campaign Store. (Feingold is the honorary chair of that fund.) At the store you can buy t-shirts and mousepads with the slogan “Don’t Spy On Me” and a drawing of a telephone cord curled up like the famous Revolutionary War-era “Don’t Tread On Me” flag featuring a rattlesnake.

The invaluable Kagro X says the Senate vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act may be delayed until after the July 4 recess. Click the link to read why–it’s a bit complicated.

Daily Kos user dday has more on the story, but cautions that a final FISA vote could still take place in the Senate this week.

Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin is willing to filibuster this very bad bill, but right now it looks like we don’t have the 41 votes to defeat a cloture motion.

I don’t pretend to understand all the parliamentary maneuvering, but I do know that if you don’t have the votes to stop a bad bill today, delaying the vote can’t hurt and may even help your cause.

The House of Representatives passed the FISA bill last Friday. In the Iowa delegation, Steve King, Tom Latham and Leonard Boswell voted for the bill, while Dave Loebsack and Bruce Braley voted against it.