The Iowa Republican reports that Sioux City businessman and social conservative leader Bob Vander Plaats could raise $200,000 for his gubernatorial campaign at an event hosted by Chuck Norris at his ranch outside Navasota, Texas. A fleet of private jets carrying the roughly 40 Iowa attendees is reportedly en route. The price is $5,000 per couple — probably not including the cost of getting there.

Norris endorsed Vander Plaats in a syndicated column last June.

U.S. Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska are two of three members of the Senate Democratic Caucus who have yet to say whether they will act to prevent a planned Republican filibuster of the Senate’s health care reform bill. (The third is Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.)

(Update: Nelson, citing a personal history of rejecting “efforts to obstruct,” has said he will vote to allow the bill to move forward.)

“[Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid has scheduled a critical vote this Saturday night that will allow the Senate to take-up his bill,” the RNC wrote today in an e-mail that urges supporters to contact Lincoln’s and Nelson’s offices.

“This is the best opportunity there will be to stop President [Barack] Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi from imposing their government-run health care plan on America.”

Speaking with reporters on Thursday, U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin predicted that the planned filibuster would fail because “no Democrat wants to be the one that stopped” health care reform.

Democrats, who currently control the Senate, will need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. That means, in addition to holding their caucus of 58 votes together, the Democrats will need the support of independent Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

Perhaps more notably, Vice President Joe Biden will still headline the dinner (as far as we know). That will put him pretty far outside the Washington beltway as the Senate’s health bill is finalized.

Gibbons, who coached ISU to an NCAA championship in 1987, said he will leave his job at Wells Fargo Advisers to campaign full time. He has never held public office.

Zaun told CQ Politics he will make a formal announcement of his intentions to run in the GOP primary Dec. 1. Zaun is a former Urbandale mayor and is serving his second term in the Iowa Senate.

The two join retired pilot Dave Funk, who declared his intentions to run earlier this year.

Jill Kozeny, communications director for Grassley, was responding to an Iowa Independent story in which Kiernan attacked the senator’s comparison of civilian trials for terror suspects to the murder trial of O.J. Simpson. Kiernan called Grassley’s comparison “fear mongering” designed to “distract from the larger national security issues facing our country.” He said Grassley was calling into question the constitutional right to a trial by jury.

While questioning U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Wednesday during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Grassley was attempting to make the point that assurances from the administration that the suspects would never be acquitted were not enough.

Holder said in response to Grassley’s questions that the likelihood of acquittal is remote, and if it were to happen, the suspects would never be released in the U.S. Justice Department officials told the New York Times that even if suspects are acquitted, the Obama administration will keep them locked up forever as a “combatant” under the laws of war.

“As Sen. Grassley revealed with the questions he asked yesterday, the administration’s argument for trying the terrorists in a federal court is a hollow one because the Attorney General pledged to keep the terrorists as enemy combatants regardless of the outcome in the courtroom,” she said. “The real questions are, why are terrorists being given more rights than U.S. service members fighting overseas, and why are Americans being subjected to an expensive security risk on U.S. soil if the terrorists could end up being held by the United States under military detention, just as they are being held today?”

Kozeny said Holder’s promise that the suspects will be convicted has “threatened the fairness of the trial by jury that is the bedrock of the U.S. Constitution,” a fact she says undermines Kiernan’s attacks.

While questioning Attorney General Eric Holder about the idea of prosecuting five men accused as co-conspirators in the Sept. 11 attacks in a federal court in New York, Grassley said assurances that they will be convicted ring hollow since “I think a lot of Americans thought O.J. Simpson ought to be convicted of murder, rather than being in jail for what he’s in jail for now. It seemed to me ludicrous.”

“I’m a farmer, not a lawyer, but I just wanted to make an observation,” Grassley said.

Kiernan said Grassley is engaging in “Karl Rove-style fear-mongering tactics” that are designed to “distract from the larger national security issues facing our country.”

“Trial by jury is the bedrock of the US Constitution,” Kiernan said. “Grassley calls this constitutional right into question and insults the American people, who every day make difficult and complicated decisions. There is simply no place for Grassley’s disrespectful politicization of this issue in today’s debate.”

After Grassley’s statement, Holder assured Iowa’s senior senator that even if acquitted terror suspects would not be released in the U.S.

Liberal blog Talking Points Memo has video of the exchange between Grassley and Holder.

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) on Capitol Hill (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)

“I’m going to take this out and attack the opponents on this, and be proactive in saying that we have a deal here that’s gonna make it better for the American people,” Harkin said Thursday morning in a conference call with reporters.

Harkin said he “can only hope” that Republicans who have opposed reform efforts will make the legislation a theme in their speeches on the campaign trail.

“I hope it is an issue next year,” he said.

“There are a lot of things that will start going into effect next year, for example, we started a high-risk pool for people with pre-existing conditions. I want to see [Republicans] say that is not a good deal.”

Harkin noted that the bill prohibits rescission, provides coverage for those who retire early and are not eligible for Medicare, offers tax credits to small businesses that provide health coverage to employees, eliminates co-pays and deductibles for preventative care, allows children to continue on family policies through age 26, and bans lifetime benefit limits.

“The biggest single cause of bankruptcies in Iowa is health care expenses when people bump up against their lifetime limits,” Harkin said. “We banned those. I’d like to see the Republicans go out next year and tell everyone that is a bad deal.”

In addition, Harkin is convinced that voters “are not going to look kindly upon the Republicans for their delaying tactics” in connection with reform efforts.

“Let’s have the amendments. Let’s have the votes. I’m not afraid of that,” he said. “I’m more than willing to have these amendments and have the votes, but you are just going to filibuster the bill — well, it’s time to get to a vote.”

Harkin, who celebrates his 70th birthday today, also renewed his call for members of the Senate to work all weekend, if necessary, in order to pass reform efforts on to the conference committee. He now anticipates that a health care reform bill will be ready for a Presidential signature by January.

Here is a transcript of some of Harkin’s comments:

I can only hope so. I hope that we pass the bill, that it goes to conference and that we give it to the President and he signs it. I hope it is an issue next year. I hope they come out — I hope the Republicans next year, when things start going into effect — there are a lot of things that will start going into effect next year, for example, we start a high-risk pool for people with pre-existing conditions to go into. I want to see them say that is not a good deal. We stopped recissions, so that insurance companies cannot drop you when you become sick. I’d like to see the Republicans next year go out and say that is a bad deal for the people of America.

We have a new re-insurance for retirees, to cover retirees who aren’t yet eligible for Medicare. We have a provision in there that will provide for coverage for these [individuals]. I’d like to see them go out and tell people from age 55 to 65 that this is a bad deal for them.

We have small business tax credits. Tax credits that go up to about 50 percent for small businesses to be able to get coverage for their employees. I’d like to see Republicans go to every small business in Iowa and tell them that is a bad deal.

Our bill bans lifetime limits. How many times do people go into bankruptcy in this country and in Iowa? The biggest single cause of bankruptcies in Iowa is health care expenses when people bump up against their lifetime limits. We banned those. I’d like to see the Republicans go out next year and tell everyone that is a bad deal.

We provide for no co-pays and no deductibles for certain prevention screenings and wellness benefits. I’d like to see see them go out and say that is a bad deal.

Our bill, next year, would require insurers to permit children to stay on their family policies until they are age 26. I’d like to see the Republicans go out next year and just say that is a bad deal for everyone.

Well, you get my point. I’d love to have this debate next year.

Not only defending — promoting.

You know my old stock thing: Never defend, always attack.

Poll after poll, people want this. It is just like the public option. Almost 2-to-1 people support a public option — and among Democrats it is 4-to-1, and among doctors 3-to-1 in this country.

So, I’d like to see the Republicans go out and tell people this is a bad deal.

I also think that people are not going to look kindly upon the Republicans for their delaying tactics on this. Let’s bring it up for a vote. Let’s have the amendments, as we did in our committee. Let’s have the amendments. Let’s have the votes. I’m not afraid of that. I’m more than willing to have these amendments and have the votes, but if you are just going to filibuster the bill — well, it’s time to get to a vote.

During an interview with MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, Harkin said no one in the Democratic caucus wants to be the person who derails health care legislation.

“We’ve all had our input. We’ve had our debate. But I believe now that the team is together,” he said. “And our team is going to hold together and we’ll have those 60 votes to move ahead.”

Harkin said the bill, which includes a public insurance option that states can opt out of, is not what he would have written. But in order to get the votes needed to move forward it was necessary to put the opt out in the bill, he said.

“I think it’s a reasonable compromise,” Harkin said. “Whether or not a state will opt out or not is up to the states. I would think a majority in every state would want to have that competitive edge a public option would present.”

Here’s video from Harkin’s appearance. His segment starts at 3:45.

When asked if the detainees would put Iowa residents in danger, Grassley indicated that people in Virginia, when faced with a similar situation, expressed safety concerns.

“From what I’ve heard from people around Virginia… that when there was some talk six months ago about housing them in Virginia, and the people of Virginia were very, very scared,” Grassley said, noting that such fears were expressed by the congressmen representing the area.

Grassley also noted that when the facility near Thomson, Ill., which is being considered as a possible detention site, was originally built there were concerns from Iowans.

“I think there was some concern among Iowans in Clinton at that particular time about the prison across the [Mississippi] River, that — even before they were talking about housing terrorists — [caused] some concern about having it there,” he said. “But they didn’t have anything to say over it, but there was some, some of that fear expressed.”

After noting that the Federal Bureau of Prisons has never had an escape from a facility such as the one they are proposing near the state line, and that there had also been no issues with external threats, a reporter on the conference call questioned Grassley if such fears were reasonable.

“Well, you know, it’s not something I’m going to worry about, because I’m opposed to these people coming here in the first place,” Grassley said.

Although Grassley was not aware at the start of the conference call of any telephone calls into his office concerning use of the facility by federal authorities, staff members informed him that he had received 10 calls just today — all of them opposed to housing detainees at Thomson.

U.S. Rep. Tom Latham has indicated that he will introduce legislation Thursday to block any attempt to house Guantanamo detainees in the Midwest.

U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley has attended a private briefing and various meetings in Thomson and wants further input from Iowa residents potentially impacted before making up his mind.

The national phone survey of 772 adults, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent, found that 52 percent believe government action would do more harm than good, and the remaining 48 percent supported change.

The poll showed a distinctly partisan split, as government action was preferred by 54 percent of Democrats, compared to only 40 percent of Republicans.

Women were far more likely to support health care reform. Nearly 58 percent of women would like to see change, compared to only 41 percent of men. The majority of both Republican and Democratic women supported reform (65 percent and 54 percent, respectively). Most Democratic men also supported reform (60 percent), but most Republican men did not (37 percent support).

“Women tend to align with the Democratic Party and its initiatives more so than men,” said Frederick Boehmke, associate professor of political science in the UI College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and faculty adviser for the Hawkeye Poll. “Fifty-three percent of women in our sample voted for Obama, compared to only 34 percent of men.”

Just over half of individuals with a high school education or less, some college, or a college degree believed health care reform would do more harm (51 percent, 52 percent and 53 percent, respectively). Those with advanced or professional degrees were most in favor of reform, with 54 percent agreeing that change is needed to control costs and expand coverage.

Respondents under age 35 appeared to be most opposed to health care reform, with 61 percent indicating that it would be a bad move, but the polling team cautioned that the number of respondents in this group was small. Adults ages 55 to 69 were most supportive of reform, with 53 percent saying they prefer it.

The poll also found that 52 percent of respondents disapprove of the job President Barack Obama is doing, a number that doesn’t surprise pollsters.

“It appears that Americans are frustrated by the lack of tangible legislative results, particularly on health care reform, and the lack of significant turnaround in unemployment since Obama took office,” said Nathan Darus, a UI doctoral candidate in political science. “New presidents are inexperienced as national-level executives. As they learn the ropes, they experience policy failures that play into disapproval.”

Of the 772 respondents, 46 percent were women and 54 percent were men. Twenty-nine percent were Democrats, 40 percent were independents, and 31 percent were Republican. Nearly 64 percent considered themselves moderate, while 20 percent were liberal and 16 percent were conservative. Reported results are weighted by state population.