Francis Thicke

Francis Thicke, an organic, grass-based dairy farmer near Fairfield, has formed an exploratory committee to consider a 2010 run for Iowa Secretary of Agriculture.

Thicke, and his wife, Susan, process milk on their farm and market it locally through grocery stores and restaurants. The couple believes there could be a major economic impact in the state if more farmers would market locally. It could, according to Thicke, “create thousands of new jobs and help revitalize rural communities in Iowa, as well as provide Iowans with fresh, nutritious food.”

“Iowa’s investment in ethanol production has brought economic development to agriculture, and we need to protect that investment,” he said. “However, it is time to reassess, and consider how future investments in renewable energy can be better targeted to profit farmers and better protect our natural resource base.”

Thicke, who holds a doctorate degree in agronomy and soil fertility, served with the U.S. Department of Agriculture as national program leader for soil science. He primarily worked with the USDA Extension Service. He has also been a frequent speaker at conferences and workshops in Iowa and across the nation on topics ranging from local food systems and economic development to organic farming practices to sustainable farming.

He has also served on the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission and the Iowa Food Policy Council at the appointment of then Gov. Tom Vilsack, and on the Iowa Organic Standards Board at the appointment of then Gov. Terry Branstad. He currently serves on Iowa’s USDA Technical Committee.

If Thicke, a Democrat, decides to place his name on the 2010 ballot for Secretary of Agriculture, he could face incumbent Bill Northey, a Republican who farms near the Spirit Lake area.  Northey has also been mentioned as a possible Republican challenger to Gov. Chet Culver.

There has long been a debate over whether ethanol is an environmentally sound alternative to gasoline. Critics contend that due to the amount of fossil fuel used to harvest and create ethanol it actually releases more greenhouse emissions than fossil fuels. But this study adds health costs to the mix, especially when ethanol is made at coal-fired production facilities.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that for every billion gallons of fuel produced and combusted in the U.S., the combined climate-change and health costs are $469 million for gasoline and $472–$952 million for corn ethanol, with the higher totals coming from coal-fired production.

Health and environmental costs plunged dramatically for cellulosic ethanol, which is derived from prairie grass, corn stalks, switch grass and other sources besides corn, costing only $123–208 million. Cellulosic ethanol, however, is not yet a commercially viable alternative.

Researchers, which included Minnesota, Stanford University and the U.S. Energy Department, said the debate over whether substituting biofuels for fossil fuels benefits or harms the environment needs to be expanded beyond greenhouse gas emissions in order to get an accurate picture of costs.

The American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), the industry’s trade association, condemned the study, saying it bases its findings on erroneous assumptions about corn-based ethanol.

“I’m disappointed with what appears to be another politically motivated study with an ax to grind against corn ethanol,” said Brian Jennings, executive vice president of ACE, in a statement “The steps our nation must take regarding climate change and energy policy must be founded on the most thorough and defensible science, but this paper does not represent a meaningful contribution to the discussion surrounding these critical issues.”

The group said the primary assumptions the study relies on disregard technology innovations that help farmers produce additional corn and companies produce ethanol more efficiently.

The Minnesota study also contradicts another study released in January by the University of Nebraska that found corn-based ethanol directly emits an average of 51 percent less greenhouse gas than gasoline, as much as three times the reduction reported in earlier research, thanks to recent improvements in efficiency throughout the production process.

According to the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, the state has 38 operational ethanol refineries with a combined annual capacity of over 3 billion gallons. There are also five ethanol refineries under construction that will add nearly 700 million gallons of capacity.

Sarah Palin at a rally in Sioux City. (Photo: Douglas Burns)

And the exclusive story is no longer the exclusive domain of the traditional media. In many cases, it’s the small, independent media that are breaking stories and driving the news these days.

With that in mind, the Iowa Independent would like to share the best of the stories that you read here first.

1. Why John McCain will select Sarah Palin as running mate by Douglas Burns (June 29, 2008)

Sarah who?

That was pretty much the reaction in June when the Iowa Independent’s Doug Burns not only said the one-term governor from Alaska should be John McCain’s vice presidential pick, but that she would be his pick. By late August, McCain actually did choose Palin to be his running mate, and Burns (and his crystal ball) were vindicated.

2. Agriprocessors official who sold used cars and favors has fled the country, residents say by Lynda Waddington (June 20, 2008)

If a scoop is defined as getting a story before any other news organization, then Lynda Waddington’s story about Hasom Amara, a former supervisor at Agriprocessors, can be counted as a super scoop. That’s because she not only broke the news to the public that Amara had fled the country, she broke the news to the Department of Justice and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division.

3. Dems’ coordinated campaign largely disbanded, replaced by Obama staff by Jason Hancock (July 3, 2008)

In a year that saw Democrats expand their majorities in both chambers of the state legislature, you wouldn’t think there would be much talk of missed opportunities. But in the months leading up to Election Day, Democrats were predicting (and Republicans were bracing for) huge gains that never came. This despite the fact that Obama overwhelmingly carried the Hawkeye State with his army of volunteers and paid staff blanketing the state and turning out supporters.

So are Iowans just notorious ticket-splitters, or was there something else to blame? Many point back to one of Obama’s first post-primary decisions, to forgo participating in the state party’s coordinated campaign and instead focus all efforts on his own election, a story we broke in Iowa. Many predicted at the time that this could make legislative races tighter, a hypothesis that seems to have panned out.

4. Fallon faces campaign finance questions By Chase Martyn (March 30, 2008)

Former state Rep. Ed Fallon

The Democratic primary for the Third Congressional District between incumbent Leonard Boswell and Ed Fallon garnered national attention and was widely expected to go right down to the wire. In the end, Boswell cruised to victory. Two major factors seemed to pull Fallon’s support down in the months leading up to the primary vote. The first was his outspoken support for Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader in 2000, something Boswell repeatedly used to try and show Fallon was somehow less of a loyal Democrat. The second was a report by the Iowa Independent calling into question the campaign finance ethics of Fallon’s for-profit political advocacy organization “I’m for Iowa.”

One of Fallon’s major lines of attack was Boswell’s stance on campaign finance reform, calling the Blue Dog Democrat a pawn of corporate America due to his willingness to accept millions of dollars from corporate political action committees. So when Fallon revealed that his for-profit advocacy organization accepted contributions that would never be disclosed, cries of hypocrisy quickly followed, whether justified or not. His campaign never seemed to regain traction.

5. Iowa’s intelligence fusion center ‘connects the dots’ By Jason Hancock (July 29, 2008)

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the federal government began creating a nationwide intelligence network with a headquarters in every state. The fusion center concept was born. Here in Iowa, very little was known about the organization, even though its major structure had been in place for years and its director, Russell Porter, was a well-known figure in the national intelligence community. As part of a nationwide series including the Iowa Independent and its sister sites in Minnesota, New Mexico, Colorado and Michigan, the doors of this secretive organization were flung open. Soon after our coverage, the story of the Iowa Intelligence Fusion Center was being told on national television.

6.  The invocation that stole the show from Sen. John McCain by John Deeth (Oct. 11, 2008)

John McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin, had not yet arrived at an Oct. 11 Davenport event, so naturally very few media members had bothered to show. Luckily, the Iowa Independent’s John Deeth is much like a Marine -– first one in, last one out, which meant he was practically the only one there to file the following report:

Before McCain’s arrival, a minister delivering an invocation said, “There are plenty of people around the world who are praying to their god, be they Hindu, Buddah, or Allah, that (McCain’s) opponent wins. … And Lord, I pray that you step forward and honor your own name.”

The story quickly made its way across the Internet, and the preacher who made the remark, The Rev. Arnold Conrad, past pastor of the Grace Evangelical Free Church, was later “honored” as Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World.”

7. Obama/Richardson Caucus deal by Chase Martyn and Lynda Waddington (Jan. 2, 2008)

There is a lot of wheeling and dealing on Caucus night. One day before Iowans rocketed Barack Obama to front-runner status, the Iowa Independent reported on possible deals between New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and the Obama campaign that directed Richardson supporters to caucus for Obama in the second round of voting.  Both sides (and nearly every other Democratic candidate) denied the deal, but we found plenty of evidence on the ground.

8. GOP platform calls for end to ethanol mandate By Jason Hancock (Sept. 3, 2008)

It was a move that received very little attention on a night when most of the Republican National Convention was cancelled because of concerns over Hurricane Gustav, but for farm states, it was a big deal. The GOP’s national platform for the first time called for an end to a mandate that gasoline contain a set amount of ethanol. Overall, the 2008 RNC Convention was not kind to the ethanol industry, with Sen. John McCain and his vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin hardly mentioning biofuels as part of the energy mix of the future. The move was seen as a putting the party in line with its presidential candidates, but many observers said at the time that it would cost Republicans support up and down the ballot in agricultural states like Iowa.

While Vilsack has promoted respectable policies with respect to restraining livestock monopolies, his overall record is one of aiding and abetting Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) or factory farms and promoting genetically engineered crops and animal cloning. Equally troubling is Vilsack’s support for unsustainable industrial ethanol production, which has already caused global corn and grain prices to skyrocket, literally taking food off the table for a billion people in the developing world.

The group has started a petition that they hope will receive 100,000 signatures opposing Vilsack.

Tom Vilsack interviewed outside Mineos pizza in Pittsburgh (Photo: Vilsack for President/Flickr)

On matters of agriculture, Vilsack was a pragmatic centrist, content with incremental changes and reluctant to take steps to significantly disrupt the status quo. When he successfully ran for his first term as governor in 1998, the generally pro-Republican Farm Bureau decided not to oppose him, choosing instead to endorse both him and his opponent. That was an impressive feat for an underdog Democrat running for governor — especially for a trial lawyer who had never farmed a day in his life.

He has clearly thought about what he would do in his new position. In an interview with a Minnesota college newspaper just before Election Day, Vilsack said Agriculture is “a department that impacts every American.”

In the interview, he cited the international food crisis as an opportunity to use America’s “soft power.” He suggested promoting renewable energy was part of the job. “How do you accelerate the research and development that gets you to second-generation bio-fuels?” he asked.

He also mentioned the school nutrition program, saying “you have to be focused on whether we are doing right by our children in schools across America in terms of nutritious food that we subsidize and we provide in school lunch programs.”

He even spoke of controlling forest fires which, it turns out the Agriculture Secretary has a role in.

While he was governor, Vilsack remained largely above the fray of ongoing feuds over the placement of confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) near rural communities. Groups on the left who would like to give local communities stricter control over where the CAFOs are allowed felt betrayed by their governor’s unwillingness to help, but his stance kept agribusiness interests relatively quiet.

Vilsack’s most noticeable impact on rural Iowa did not involve changes to agricultural policy or stricter environmental regulations, but rather tax credits and business incentives. His economic development efforts — most notably the Iowa Values Fund, which was designed to create grants, loans, and tax incentives for businesses who choose to locate in the state — have been credited for short-term successes in many corners of the state, but critics in his own party argued that they amounted to corporate welfare.  In any event, the long-term benefits remain difficult to measure.

Vilsack was a pragmatist by necessity. For all eight of his years at Iowa’s helm, he faced a Republican-controlled legislature.  His allies on the left say his record might have looked different if Democrats won control of the statehouse a few years earlier.  He chose not to run for a third term in 2006 despite his relative popularity, opting instead to explore a presidential bid that quickly flopped.

As a presidential candidate in a crowded Democratic primary, Vilsack, who served as chair of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council until only months earlier, seemed to move farther to the left on environmental issues, embracing an ambitious but seemingly arbitrary requirement that, by 2020, all new power plants constructed must be carbon-free. His campaign even bought carbon credits to offset its campaign activities.

Vilsack also subtly tempered his enthusiasm for corn-based ethanol over the course of his candidacy, shifting to a more tenable position in favor of all forms of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels, using corn ethanol merely as a “transitional fuel.”

From the few glimpses we have gotten of Vilsack’s federal agricultural policy positions, it is clear that he supports stricter limits on farm subsidies than Congress was able to pass in the 2008 Farm Bill. That puts him in line with the President-elect and Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Perhaps unfortunately for Vilsack, it will likely be another four or five years before Congress passes the next farm bill, and that is longer than a typical cabinet secretary has to wait.

In the interim, Vilsack will be tasked with many administrative and regulatory responsibilities, and he seems intent on pushing other policy goals in line with the Democrats’ agenda.

Expect the incoming Secretary of Agriculture to achieve tangible results that are easy to explain, because that is Vilsack’s style. He will immerse himself in a few specific issues, come up with a few policy ideas, and set to work building a political consensus, diluting the original ideas when necessary.

Don’t expect Vilsack, a consummate pragmatist, to turn America’s food system upside down anytime soon.

The organization, Growth Energy, is planning a national advertising campaign, starting in Wednesday’s New York Times, to defend the industry from accusations that biofuel production is driving up food prices. Bruce Rastetter, chief executive of Ames-based Hawkeye Energy, told The Des Moines Register that Growth Energy would be a new voice for the industry.

[Grocery Manufacturers Association] has argued that ethanol is one of several factors behind recent food price inflation and one of the only ones that the government can control. …

The Glover Park Group, the Washington consulting firm that has been managing the anti-ethanol campaign for GMA and other organizations, called Growth Energy a “splinter group” that “seeks to perpetuate the myth that rising food prices are a result of a food-company conspiracy.”

Besides Hawkeye Energy, other companies involved include Poet LLC, which owns seven ethanol plants in Iowa, Amaizing Energy of Denison and Green Plains Renewable Energy of Omaha.

Here is The Register:

U.S. Rep. Steve King, a conservative Republican who won re-election in western Iowa, said he tried without success to get McCain to soften his position on ethanol.

King said he suggested to McCain’s advisers that the candidate talk about the 2015 mandate for ethanol usage as a workable goal. McCain didn’t take the advice and instead kept attacking ethanol, King said.

In the end, ethanol was one of several issues that hurt McCain, including his support for the bailout of the financial system, King said. King said McCain needed to get at least 60 percent of the vote in his district to have a chance at winning Iowa but wound up with less than 50 percent.

But in the movie, Sly Stallone’s iconic character pulls himself from the mat while the audience is still in suspense, waiting to find out what will happen.

With three weeks until the election, this very real American drama is far from over, but both McCain and Sen. Barack Obama showed signs of end-game strategy, with McCain gleefully going for gusto, and Obama comfortable with allowing McCain’s old lines of attack to continue.

Many analysts are surely all over cable and the Net now giving McCain the debate on points. The only trouble with that is this: he lost the forest through the trees. Obama talked past McCain to the American people. McCain seemed more interested in winning a fight with Obama.

The Arizona senator tossed in 1980s-style attacks on Obama that seemed tired (e.g., liberal tax-and-spender) and ridiculous comparisons, such as the one he trotted out seeking to link Obama to Herbert Hoover.

McCain used the debate to continue his backfiring line of attack that Obama started his campaign in the “living room” of a terrorist, William Ayers. But for two years, Obama has appeared in our living rooms, through the TV or, for some Iowans, literally. The suggestion that he’s a stalking horse for dark forces is an eye-roller.

McCain was like the kid who jumps out from behind a bush and yells “boo” to scare you on the way to school — after jumping out from the same bush and yelling “boo” each day for the past two weeks. As Dionne Warwick would say, you just walk on by.

Swinging for Obama with haymakers, McCain made the classic mistake of the barroom brawler who, intoxicated with anger, forgets that such long reaches leave the thrower exposed. McCain’s attempts to hook Obama to certain ghosts of the Vietnam War haven’t worked because people are too busy fighting their own contempotary day-to-day battles. And we don’t care that Obama hasn’t traveled to South America, something for which McCain actually chided the Illinois senator with a snide line that just seemed mean — like something you’d hear from a 9-wood-wielding 72-year-old yelling at the 82-year-old he’s trying to play through on an Arizona golf course.

McCain, so fired up over Ayers, forgot to study his health care plan or develop a clear way to explain it. So on this real-world issue, one that’s scary stuff on Maple Street, the debate left the distinct impression that McCain’s plan could eliminate your employer-based coverage and replace it with a nebulous $5,000 credit — a situation that could leave older workers with a far worse deal.

Obama showed superior command of the details, leaving McCain with a weak retort of seeking to pin the supposed woes of “Joe the plumber” on Obama.

McCain made a miscalculation with his tax-and-spend attacks on Obama as well. Americans aren’t so worried about high taxes right now because the government can’t tax what they don’t have. They want some stability in their lives, someone to take charge and stop the hemorrhaging.

Even McCain’s best line of the night will come back to haunt him. “I’m not President Bush,” McCain said. “If you wanted to run against President Bush you should have run four years ago.” Anytime George W. Bush’s name is mentioned it is a loser for McCain, and it is he, not Obama, in all those pictures hugging and consorting with W.

Here in western Iowa, we were treated to another slap in the face as McCain, with the universe of federal spending to choose from when asked a question about where he may make some cuts, went right for the throat of ethanol. Some Republicans in recent days here in Carroll have told me they don’t like McCain’s position on ethanol but they view his comments as rhetorical. The cuts couldn’t make it through Congress so his statements are irrelevant, they argue. Considering what ethanol has meant to the farm economy of this part of Iowa, that’s a gamble most aren’t willing to take.

What’s more, on the energy front, McCain is proposing the construction of 45 new nuclear plants — not exactly a boon for western Iowa which will benefit if wind, solar and other renewable forms of energy are placed at the top of the nation’s energy strategy — as they are with Obama.

Finally, and perhaps most devastating for McCain, was a comment he made about abortion as he literally poo-poohed the idea of a “health of the mother” exception in a theoretical late term abortion ban. No matter how this spins, it still stings McCain and will be a deal-killer with independent suburban — and even rural — women, not all of whom have picked a candidate yet.

In fact, McCain’s opposition to the health exception was the only major new position to emerge during the course of the debate, and it will weigh heavily on certain undecided voters’ minds. One could make the case that the other 89 minutes and 45 seconds of the debate meant nothing politically for either man.

McCain may find himself playing defense among female voters all the way through Election Day.

Sen. Barack Obama made a change of direction — getting out of Iraq more quickly than McCain and focusing on Afghanistan and other incubators of terror — sound safe in his hands.

Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama shake hands before the first debate of the 2008 general election (Photo: Flickr - David Katz/Obama for America)

In the end, McCain was like a Buick salesman who did a better job pitching his car than the Toyota guy. Great on points, but we know who gets the sale.

“Obviously our foreign policy over the last eight years has not worked,” Obama said.

The Illinois Democrat showed a presidential command of foreign policy issues and went after his rival in a strong, respectful manner — a more Midwestern approach, if you will.

McCain flexed large foreign policy muscles, but he detracted from that with personal attacks on Obama, calling him naive and inexperienced. At times, the presidential debate at the University of Mississippi seemed like a contest between confidence in the form of Obama and arrogance itself with McCain.

It is a subtety not lost on Midwesterners.

Both candidates successfully articulated highly nuanced foreign policy positions, effortlessly getting the challenging names of world leaders correct (mostly), and weaving through complexities with no hiccups. No one lost the debate tonight as Obama, 47, showed the bearing for the Oval Office and McCain, 72, demonstrated sufficient vigor.

How will it play in the Iowa?

For those in Iowa looking for specific personal financial reasons to pick a candidate, McCain may be the only one who has provided us one — and it is not good for him in this state.  McCain made it clear one of the casualties of the potential Wall Street bailout should be ethanol.

Supporting ethanol might be debatable on a national level, but it is N.I.M.B.Y. around here.

“I’d eliminate ethanol subsidies,” McCain said flatly. “I oppose ethanol subsidies.”

Those are likely deal-killing words for farmers and others in rural America who have made investments and business decisions based on ethanol.

Iowa’s ethanol industry has resulted in more than 47,000 new jobs in Iowa.  Production of ethanol puts $1.7 billion into Iowa consumers’ pockets each year, according to the Iowa Corn Growers Association.

In neighboring Nebraska, ethanol is big business, too, and because the Cornhusker State bases three of its five electoral votes on how presidential candidates do in individual congressional districts, McCain’s ethanol blast only serves to help Obama’s already aggressive efforts in Omaha.

Candidates on offense

McCain had his strongest moments of the night in challenging Obama’s long-stated and controversial declaration that he’d meet with certain world leaders without preconditions.

Actually using the word “Holocaust,” McCain attempted to paint a picture of Obama sitting down with Hitler-like figures bent on Israel’s destruction. A mere meeting, McCain argues, confers legitimacy on thug rulers.

“It doesn’t mean we invite them over for tea,” Obama shot back.

Obama generally found success when he sought to connect McCain with George W. Bush, leaving the Arizona Republican with little but ridiculous deflectors. McCain went so far as to give himself different nicknames in the debate. First he said some people call him “sheriff” because of his alleged efforts to attack waste, fraud and abuse. I wonder what Charles Keating called McCain back in the 1980s? Sheriff — of Mayberry, maybe.

McCain then called himself a “maverick” as if plucking that word from his first life would save him in a second as he faced a withering assault on the links to Bush.

The Arizonan never adequately answered the charge that 90 percent of his political DNA comes from W.

“It’s well known I have not been elected Miss Congenialty,” McCain repeated.

Obama’s statement was reported Wednesday in an article by Jerry Hagstrom for DTN Ag News:

In a telephone call to a National Farmers Union reception in Washington, Obama said he has supported the RFS and federal programs for renewable fuels since he became a senator from Illinois. He also noted that the weather-related disaster program, hospitals, the recruitment of doctors and high-speed internet service are important to rural America.

“I will keep on fighting for you as president,” Obama said. “These are the legislative priorities I am going to tackle with you.” Obama received the Golden Triangle from the NFU, a Democratic-leaning group.

The article also quotes Iowa Republican senator Chuck Grassley as saying that his party’s platform is “inconsistent” on renewable fuels issues.