Des Moines anti-abortion activist Dave Leach appears in one of a series of Web videos arguing that killing doctors who perform abortions is justified, and that judges should allow the theory to be argued in court.

Shelley Shannon, who is serving time at the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minn., for shooting and wounding Tiller outside his clinic in 1993, sent Des Moines anti-abortion activist Dave Leach an e-mail to give to the press Tuesday. In it, she decried the judge’s decision to instruct the jury that it would not be allowed to to consider any lesser charges than first-degree murder.

Roeder shot and killed Tiller last May. He openly admitted to the crime in order to use the necessity defense, which says it is permissible to commit a crime if it stops a greater harm.

Leach drafted the necessity defense legal brief for Roeder, who was planning to argue he killed Tiller to stop him from performing abortions. Legal experts said because abortion is legal, the defense was not possible, and if allowed, would open the door to violence against abortion providers. Ultimately, the judge agreed.

“The claim was made that if Scott had been allowed to use the true defense of his actions, it would lead to more abortionists being killed,” Shannon said in her e-mail. “I believe Scott’s judge was influenced by that and other media/pro-abort pressure to change his mind and not allow Scott his defense. Abortionists are killed because they are serial murderers of innocent children who must be stopped, and they will continue to be stopped, even though Scott didn’t get a fair trial. May God bless Scott for his faithfulness and brave actions and stand.”

Leach, who publishes a newsletter that advocates the doctrine of justifiable homicide in the case of abortion doctors, said the defense should have been allowed since “Scott Roeder had no quarrel with George Tiller other than his commission of infanticide.”

“God indicated what he thought the trial was about by arranging for it to begin on the 37th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade,” Leach said. “God is relevant, and what he commands is legal, though the whole world opines otherwise.”

Before the trial began, Leach said it was disingenuous to argue that using the necessity defense in this case would lead to more violence. The fear of violence from anti-abortion activists would end abortion, thus end the need for violence to stop them, Leach argued.

“Let’s get real here: the 60,000 notches on Tiller’s scalpel of whom he boasted on his Web site constitute ‘violence.’ Anything that reduces abortion reduces ‘violence,’” he said. “But my vision is to reduce all the violence: against babies and against abortionists. Abortionists will be unemployed, but safe”

Vander Plaats supporter and Christian radio host Steve Deace lobbed the first volley in an e-mail to conservative activists. He pointed to portions of Branstad’s record — such as tax increases during his tenure, earning an endorsement from teacher’s unions and his appointment of a lieutenant governor who supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights — and asked if they would ever consider supporting a “hypothetical candidate” with that kind of platform.

Deace got responses from numerious individuals, including former and current GOP candidates and the leaders of several of the state’s most influential conservative organizations.

Blogger and former Republican Party of Iowa Political Director Craig Robinson, a regular guest on Deace’s program who calls the radio host a “good man” and genuine friend, quickly fired back with a hypothetical of his own that criticized Vander Plaats’ record. He then took Vander Plaats supporters to task for blasting Branstad for doing things similar to another governor many of them once defended, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

I also would remind you, and a number of people on this e-mail chain (and my wife for that matter), that you guys voted for a candidate who was in favor of higher income taxes, higher sales taxes, higher gas taxes, higher grocery taxes, higher tobacco taxes, higher beer taxes, higher Internet taxes, and higher nursing home bed taxes.

You voted for a candidate who was the ONLY Republican to speak to the [National Education Association] and later receive their endorsement.

You voted for a candidate who called No Child Left Behind “the greatest education reform effort by the federal government in my lifetime.”

You voted for a candidate who supported amnesty and taxpayer-financed welfare and health care for illegal aliens.

What’s so ironic about your hypothetical question is that almost everything you take issue with in Branstad’s record are things that you either didn’t care about or chose to overlook in regards to Mike Huckabee. It looks like you have flip-flopped on these issues quicker than Mitt Romney ever could have.

Vander Plaats was Huckabee’s Iowa campaign director during the 2008 presidential caucus season, and Huckabee endorsed his gubernatorial bid last May. Many of the same groups and individuals who were active in the Huckabee presidential campaign are now supporting Vander Plaats. By the same token, many of Branstad’s supporters, including one-time chief of staff Doug Gross, were active in the campaign of Huckabee’s chief rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Branstad has been drawing fire from social and religious conservatives from the moment he announced he was interested in re-entering politics. A meeting with several social conservative leaders aimed at soothing their concerns ended up bolstering them, as details of a disappointed group ended up on several blogs. The back-and-forth culminated last month with state Rep. Kent Sorenson, R-Indianola, and the Iowa Family Policy Center announced that not only would they be endorsing Vander Plaats but that they would never support a Branstad candidacy.

In the aftermath, Vander Plaats refused to sign on to a loyalty oath passed by the Linn County Republican Party and also would not rule out a third-party run for governor should he be defeated in the primary.

President Barack Obama (WDCpix)

“A freeze in domestic discretionary spending,” they argued, “would immediately save $53 billion and more importantly demonstrate an immediate commitment to fiscal restraint.”

Over the next month, the “No-Cost Jobs Plan” remained a useful talking point for Republicans rebutting attacks on their “no” votes, a hook for op-eds, and not much else. But in early January, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag fueled speculation that the White House might want freezes in discretionary spending in the 2011 budget. On Monday night the White House leaked the news that President Obama would propose a three-year freeze on such spending, which makes up roughly one-sixth of the budget. In his State of the Union speech, the president confirmed it.

“Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years,” Obama said. “Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will.”

This sudden and hardly expected shift–using the language of personal responsibly that Republicans have used since before Obama took office–has startled members of both parties and economists both critical and supportive of White House policy. And while they’re using the opportunity to needle Democrats on a policy that’s seen as unlikely to shrink the deficit, conservatives see Obama’s decision as a partial declaration of surrender.

“I never met a spending freeze I didn’t like,” said U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., the chairman of the Republican conference. He pointed to the December 9 letter and gave his party full credit for appearing to change the president’s mind on spending. “I’d welcome a sincere attempt at a spending freeze.”

U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley said he approved of the spending freeze but believes it can’t stand alone. It must be coupled, Grassley said, with “cutting things or just turning back the TARP money, as an example. That’s $200 billion right there.”

Grassley pushed the idea of a spending freeze last March as a method to stop the president’s “socialist” agenda.

U.S. Rep. Tom Latham, R-Ames, said he, too, supports the idea of a spending freeze but remains skeptical it will actually happen under the watch of “a president who spent more taxpayer dollars in his first year than any other president in history.”

As a short-term attempt to co-opt Republican rhetoric, the “spending freeze” promise is a success. The first poll on the idea, conducted by Rasmussen Reports, found a 56-24 percent majority in favor of a freeze, with a slim 48 percent plurality of voters predicting it would have at least “a little” impact on cutting the deficit. It followed multiple polls that have found the public skeptical that government spending can pull the economy out of the recession. That, according to some critics, explains why the White House would grab onto a Republican concept unlikely to have a major effect on the economy.

“It has to be evaluated on political terms,” said Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist who has clashed with fellow travelers over his opposition to spending cuts in a bad economy. “What’s he trying to accomplish politically by saying this? He’s trying to give the appearance of moving to the middle. As policy, it’s too puny to have an effect even if it’s implemented.”

Bartlett argued that liberal economists’ concerns about the impact of any kind of spending freeze were “overwrought, because nothing will come of this. But Obama’s sending mixed signals to everybody–his own supporters as well–as to what exactly his economic philosophy is.”

Deficit hawks have taken the same approach to the “freeze” concept as Republicans. At best, it points to the right policy but doesn’t get there fast enough. At worst, it’s a distraction from more deeply-needed cuts.

“We wouldn’t oppose this,” said Josh Gordon, director of policy at the budget watchdog group The Concord Coalition. “It’s an acknowledgment that the deficit is a problem. You have to start somewhere. My concern is that too much political capital could be wasted on small items, and not enough could be spent on long-term challenges, like entitlement and defense spending.”

“Voters aren’t stupid,” said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist. (Conant’s client Tim Pawlenty called the “freeze” concept “kind of like somebody eating three Big Macs and then deciding they’re going to control their weight by ordering a Diet Coke.”) “The spending issue is not going anywhere, with or without this spending freeze. It only pertains to a small part of the budget, not even the fastest-growing part of the budget.”

Conant doubted that Obama had taken a Republican issue off the table for 2010, despite the instant polls. “Republicans do deserve credit for having the president acknowledge a problem,” he said. Other Republican strategists agreed that the “freeze” wouldn’t shift public opinion on which party can grapple with the deficit; one suggested that Obama’s embrace of the frame might make it easier for Republicans to run on government-cutting while dodging the tricky questions of entitlement or defense spending cuts.

“Ninety-five percent of Republican candidates, officials, staffers and advisers do not give a rat’s ass about fiscal restraint or government size,” one strategist told TWI. “At the end of the day, 95 percent of them believe people want to hear about fiscal restraint, but ultimately want government to give them stuff. This is how we default to talking about tax cuts, not spending, because everyone is afraid that if you criticize a spending item, you’ll offend someone. Well, you will. But when you bankrupt the whole country, which Obama’s proposal is not going to stop, you offend millions.”

Pence and other Republicans suggested that the “freeze” concept would come up again in a Friday meeting between the president and their party’s conference in Baltimore. Whatever the long-term political effect–whether or not a “freeze” happens–Obama critics are pleased that a year of arguments for more government spending are being swept aside.

“What he’s doing is actually pretty much what Bush didn’t have the guts to do in eight years,” said Veronique De Rugy, a libertarian economist at the Mercatus Center who has criticized the Keynesian spending policies of the Obama administration. “It’s nothing. But it’s more than Bush did.”

The Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend that in an unusual move, the office of President Barack Obama’s regulatory czar has held nearly 20 meetings with coal industry groups since October. The topic of discussion is whether the EPA should classify coal ash, the toxic byproduct of coal combustion, as a hazardous waste.

Watchdog groups say it is unusual for the OMB to insert itself so prominently, and so early, into the process. In this case, the EPA has yet to publish its proposed new regulations for coal ash, a step that would then open the door to public comment and hearings.

“Industry is trying to influence the process in a back-door fashion,” said Lisa Evans, a senior attorney for Earthjustice, an environmental organization.

The EPA originally promised to release draft regulations of coal ash by the end of 2009, and in doing so, open the rules up for public comment. That deadline was pushed back indefinitely last month. The fear among many hoping for tough new rules is that the EPA will issue regulations that either don’t classify coal ash as hazardous waste or split its designation between wet and dry ash.

In Iowa, there are four coal ash disposal sites that have received state waivers allowing them to accept ash without protective liners to prevent toxins such as mercury, zinc, lead, arsenic and selenium from leeching into groundwater. The sites are also not required to test groundwater to see if the pollution is already taking place.

Gov. Chet Culver and legislative leaders have said that once the EPA releases draft rules the state will determine whether to work on its own regulations. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources worked for more than a year on tougher coal ash regulations before opposition from site owners and coal-burning businesses, along with uncertainty about what regulations the federal government may eventually impose, caused the effort to stall.

From the Globe Gazette:

The vote was 238 to 119, exactly the two-thirds majority vote needed for it to pass.

“I’m happy that they decided to go this direction because I think it sets the possibility for a new and stronger future for the congregation,” said Rev. Dean Hess, senior pastor at the Clear Lake church.

Carole Roth, church council president, said she was pleased with the results, too.

“Certainly God has spoken today,” she said.

Last month nine Iowa congregations joined a new sect of Lutheran churches, a signal that they were considering leaving the ELCA.

Stewart has represented the northeastern district since 2003. In 2006, he easily won re-election with 65 percent of the vote.

He has served as chair of the Senate Economic Growth Committee and serves on the Commerce, Environment & Energy, Rebuild Iowa, and Ways and Means committees.

“Latham has been taking the health insurers’ money and living it up at the same time he’s part of the Republican fight to stop health care reform in Congress,” Kiernan said in a statement. “He should be ashamed of himself – this is not what Iowans expect of their elected officials.”

The reaction comes on the heels of an Iowa Independent investigation, which found that nearly a quarter of the money raised by Latham’s leadership PAC, known as For America’s Republican Majority (FARM PAC), was spent on trips around the country touted as fundraisers, mostly to prestigious golf resorts. During the 2008 election cycle, a little more than 34 percent of the PAC’s money went to political contributions, a practice that is supposed to be the main focus of these types of organizations.

A recent joint report by the nonprofit site ProPublica, ABC News and the Washington Post found that a majority of the money raised by leadership PACs goes to entertainment, administrative costs, fundraising and other categories that “are so vague that it’s impossible to know for sure how the money was spent.”

However, of Iowa’s five members of Congress and two Senators, all of which have leadership PACs, Latham is the only one conducting this type of spending, which campaign finance watchdogs contend turns PACs into political slush funds that flout laws governing fundraising conduct.

“Who’s contributing to Latham’s PAC so he can party like a rock star?” Kiernan’s news release said. “This should come as no surprise, it’s major health insurers.  Among the top ten for this year are Blue Cross Blue Shield and AFLAC.  Also on the list are Kirke Van Orsdel and USAA, both insurance providers. “

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, one of the largest donors to FARM PAC is Emergent BioSolutions, a multinational biopharmaceutical company that donated $5,000 in 2009. However, of the PAC’s top 20 contributors, only $5,500 comes from health insurers or health insurance executives.

“Latham will surely be a ‘no’ vote on any health reform package that emerges,” Kiernan said. “After all, it’s starting to get cold again in Iowa, and the beach calls.”

U.S. Rep. Tom Latham, R-Ames

Latham’s PAC, called For America’s Republican Majority (FARM PAC), raised $205,447 during the two-year campaign cycle that led up to the 2008 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Of that total, nearly $52,000 was spent for trips advertised as fundraisers, mostly to well-known golf courses in California. The money paid for travel, hotel accommodations, meals and golf course fees.

That total represents only expenses associated with out-of-state travel and does not include fees paid to fundraising consultants or fundraisers held in the Washington, D.C., area. It also does not include other charges related to the trips, such as a $1,775 payment in August 2008 to Los Angeles-based Summit Limousine for transportation to a fundraising event.

When those expenses are factored in, the PAC spent $80,165 on entertainment and other fundraising costs, or nearly 40 percent of all money raised.

The PAC spent a little more than $70,000 on direct contributions to Republican candidates around the country, a practice that is supposed to be the main focus of these types of organizations, called “leadership PACs.”

Election reform advocates are highly critical of leadership PACs, saying they amount to little more than political slush funds designed to allow elected officials to skirt campaign finance laws. Two trips this year by Latham — a weekend in Atlantic City, N.J., and a golf outing at the prestigious Greenbrier Resort in West Virginia — have already drawn criticism.

Below is a list of expenses associated with out of state travel during the 2008 election cycle.

Trips taken in 2007 (dates reflect when payment was issued):

Boca Raton Resort in Boca Raton, Fla., in February

La Quinta Resort & Club in La Quinta, Calif., in February

The St. Regis Monarch Beach in Dana Point, Calif., in February

Boca Raton Resort in Boca Raton, Fla., in March

Del Mar Thoroughbred Club in Del Mar, Calif., in May

Averills Lodge at Whitefish in Montana in August

The St. Regis Monarch Beach in Dana Point, Calif., in August

Embassy Suites Omaha in August

Caves Valley Golf Club in Owings Mills, Md., in December

Trips made during 2008:

LaQuinta Resort & Club in La Quinta, Calif., in January

The Cliffs Hotel in Shell Beach, Calif., in June

Del Mar Racetrack in Del Mar, Calif., in August

Greenbrier Hotel in White Sulphur Springs. W.V. in September

Hilton Hotel in Minneapolis, Minn., in September

The St. Regis Monarch Beach in Dana Point, Calif in September

Disney Resort Grand Lake in Lake Buena Vista, Fla., in November

That’s because the trips were paid for by Latham’s political action committee and touted as fundraising events, a practice that is legal but that government reform advocates contend turns the PAC into little more than a slush fund designed to skirt campaign finance law.

U.S. Rep. Tom Latham, R-Ames.

And an Iowa Independent investigation found similar trips to prestigious golf resorts around the country throughout 2008, all paid for with PAC money.

These types of political action committees, known as “Leadership PACs,” are designed as a way for lawmakers to raise money to be passed along to other members of their party for their campaigns. By making donations to members of their party, lawmakers can use their leadership PACs to gain clout and boost their bids for leadership posts or committee chairmanships.

But a joint investigation by the nonprofit news site ProPublica, ABC News and the Washington Post found that a majority of the money raised by leadership PACs goes to entertainment, administrative costs, fundraising and other categories that “are so vague that it’s impossible to know for sure how the money was spent.”

ProPublica found lawmakers used money from their PACs to pay for trips to places like Churchill Downs, Disney World and the Country Music Hall of Fame. They found that Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., used nearly $65,000 to commission a portrait of himself.

All five of Iowa’s congressmen and both senators have leadership PACs (Sen. Tom Harkin has two). But Latham’s organization, dubbed For America’s Republican Majority (FARM PAC) is getting the lion’s share of attention.

Latham, along with House Minority Leader John Boehner, Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss and North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, held a golf outing touted as a fundraiser for their leadership PACs at the Greenbrier Resort in West Virginia in July.

In June, Latham hosted an Atlantic City weekend to benefit his PAC. Lodging at the Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort cost FARM PAC $1,377.36.

Disclosure reports filed in 2008 with the Federal Election Commission show FARM PAC paid for hotel accommodations at prestigious golf resorts around the country, including the Greenbriar Resort in September;  The St. Regis Hotel-Monarch Beach in Dana Point, Calif. in August; and the LaQuinta Resort & Club near Palm Springs, Calif., in January.

Since returning to the capitol from the August recess, Latham has held two D.C. fundraisers for FARM PAC, with a third scheduled for Oct. 27.

FARM PAC has raised more than $75,000 this year. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the largest donors to FARM PAC in 2009 include Altria Group (formerly Philip Morris), AT&T, California Dairies Inc. and Latham for Congress. The PAC raised $205,447 during the 2008 election cycle, with almost all of it coming from lobbyists, PACs and corporate leaders.

For some reason, ProPublica did not include Latham’s PAC in their breakdown of more than 400 leadership PACs. The site did, however, look at rest of Iowa’s congressional delegation and found that they have not followed down a similar path as Latham.

More than 80 percent of money spent during the 2008 election cycle by Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley’s leadership PAC, Bringing Leadership Back PAC, was spent on campaign contributions to fellow Democrats.

Republican Rep. Steve King’s Conservative Principals PAC spent nearly 50 percent of its money on what ProPublica classifies as “entertainment, events and travel,” mostly on payments to the fundraising telecommunications company Liberty Phone Center.

Democratic Rep. Dave Loebsack’s I-PAC and Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell’s BOSPAC spent almost all of the very small amount of money raised in 2008 on campaign contributions.

A little more than 70 percent of the money spent by Harkin’s Independent Action Inc. during the 2008 election cycle went for administrative costs. As for his To Organize a Majority PAC, more than 57 percent of its expenditures went to campaign contributions for Harkin’s senate colleagues, with 25 percent going to “fundraising consultants.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley’s Hawkeye PAC spent nearly 78 percent of its money on campaign contributions.

Responding to a request for comment, Latham’s spokesman, Fred Love, said in an e-mail to the Iowa Independent that the congressman’s official office does not work with or speak on behalf of any campaign committees. Phone calls to the number listed for the Alexandria, Va., offices of FARM PAC were not answered.

For more background on the controversy surrounding leadership PACs, read ProPublica’s report here.

According to caller ID, they originate from (202) 461-3459 and are also identified with the words “Washington D.C.”

Latham, a Republican representing Iowa’s 4th District, responds when the call is answered and announces that he and King, a Republican representing Iowa’s 5th District, have a short survey regarding “the Pelosi-Obama health care plan.”

The first question, provided by Latham, asks if the person answering the call approves of “the Pelosi-Obama health care plan.”

The second and third questions, both asked by King, are a bit egregious. The second question reportedly asks if the respondent supports the “rationing” of health care that would occur under “the Pelosi-Obama health care plan,” and the third question measure’s the listener’s support for supposed tax increases that are included in the plan.

Democratic advocates of health reform dispute the notion that their plans would lead to rationing or significant tax increases.

According to information on the call it was paid for by For America’s Republican Majority (FARM), a political action committee affiliated with Latham.