WHO-AM radio host Steve Deace

Deace first discussed the Ft. Hood shooting Monday on his show. In a blog post published Wednesday, Deace expanded on his ideas and offered solutions to avoid similar acts being committed in the future.

Major Nidal Hasan allegedly shot and killed 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas and wounded 29 more. While his motives are still under scrutiny, he allegedly yelled ”Allahu akbar,” or “God is great,” before opening fire.

Deace said news of Hasan’s religious beliefs proves that while America has “sold out our religious traditions for a secular enlightenment,” the same cannot be said of the Muslim world.

“Contrary to conventional wisdom, Hasan may have done America a favor if we heed the warnings after the fact that we ignored beforehand, which sadly cost 13 brave and loyal Americans at Ft. Hood their lives,” Deace said. “If we stop lying to ourselves and accept the grave determination of the religious ideology that allegedly drove Hasan, then those 13 Americans didn’t perish in vain.”

The first step is Christian churches in American must begin to clearly define the differences between the teachings of the Bible and the Koran.

“We are at war with an ideology that has an aberrant view of God and what he demands of his people, so why wouldn’t the church use this as perhaps the greatest evangelistic and apologetic opportunity of the age?” Deace said. “We can’t expect our politicians to know the truth if the people in the pews who vote for them aren’t hearing it from the pulpit.”

Step two is to recognize that “Islam is not a religion of peace.”

Third, there is a difference between private citizen and public servant, so while Muslims are allowed to believe whatever the wish in America, being a part of the military means swearing loyalty to the U.S. Constitution.

“Since this is a nation largely founded on the Judeo-Christian value system, following the U.S. Constitution doesn’t provide too many roadblocks for me as a Christian, but it obviously does for those who follow the Koran,” Deace said. “Soldiers and public servants should be held to a higher standard than a private citizen, regardless of their belief system.”

Islam is an ideology opposed to the American ideal “every bit as much as communism or Nazism,” Deace said. The war against “radical Islam” has been taking place for more than a decade, and there is a simple reason why it won’t end any time soon.

“Because we began this war on a faulty premise, the premise that we’re all the same and truth is just a matter of perspective,” Deace said.  “Our Islamic enemy doesn’t believe this, but is exploiting our belief in it, and is winning as a result.”

In the aftermath of Major Nidal Hasan’s killing spree at Fort Hood in Texas, questions of whether his actions were inspired by religious fervor are still unanswered. But because Hasan reportedly yelled “”Allahu akbar,” or “God is great,” before opening fire, Deace believes it is a clear example of political correctness getting in the way of protecting American lives.

“I haven’t said we should purge the military of every single Muslim, but I do think we should start asking ourselves a real key question: If someone has sworn a public loyalty to the ideology that brave men and women are fighting against, why are we giving them uniforms and guns?” he said.

Deace compared allowing Muslims to serve to allowing someone to serve in the colonial army who had pledged loyalty to the British crown or to a Nazi sympathizer during World War II.

The problem, he said, is that society is so worried about offending anyone that they are putting everyone at risk.

“This is the problem with political correctness,” Deace said. “I do not believe Islam is a peaceful religion. But I also don’t believe all Muslims are warmongers. I just think if you look at this history and tradition of Islam, to come to the conclusion that it’s a peaceful religion is laughable on its face. “

Deace was particularly upset with two audio clips he played for his listeners. The first was former President George W. Bush saying Christians and Muslims will both go to heaven, “we just have a different routes of getting there.” Deace said this was absolutely untrue, and that Bush was either lying or uninformed of how incompatible the two religions are.

He then played an interview with Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey who said he’s worried that rumors and speculation surrounding Hasan’s motives could result in a backlash against Muslim soldiers.

“His concern is that we won’t be fair to people who have declared their loyalty to a theology that we are currently at war against. I don’t understand this,” Deace said, later adding: “My concern is that we know who the enemy is and we kill them before they kill us. That would be my concern. Not diversity.”

The problem is that “diversity training and gobbledygook and psychobabble and gay rights and tolerance” have taught society that people who disagree with them are hateful.

“We assume that if I think you marrying another guy is not a good idea for you and that other guy and the children you might adopt, that must mean I hate you,” Deace said. “If I think that the police, instead of interrogating child sex offenders ought to shoot them, that means I hate the sex offenders. If I think it’s not a good idea to have someone who screams out ‘Allah akbar’ to serve in the military, I must hate him. There’s no delineation between the inherent value of human beings created in the image of God and whatever phony, evil things they either believe in or engage in.”

Controversial Christian radio personality Steve Deace slammed Grassley in a blog post Monday morning, calling his speech “a long, rambling, incoherent embarrassment of something which may have resembled a speech that not only killed the event but continued on well into the body’s decomposition process.”

Deace pointed to the elements of the speech and of Grassley’s record in the Senate that most upset him, including his vote last year for a bank bailout and his support for Earthpartk, an indoor rain forest at one time expected to be built in Iowa.

He then criticized several amendments offered by Grassley to health care reform legislation, in particular, an amendment that would clarify  “reporting requirements for tax-exempt organizations.” Deace fears that the language of the amendment opens the door to discrimination against churches that refuse to hire homosexuals or to consider women applicants for pastoral positions.

Perhaps in the future some Democrat will come along and decide these ministries need to be investigated because they think homosexuality is a sin, so government needs to intervene and look at their finances, too?

Grassley is helping to grease the skids for that to happen in the future because when you’ve been in Washington too long you see everything as a problem for Washington to handle.  Yet another reason why the slogan of our nation’s capital ought to be “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

Potomac Fever is a deadlier disease than H1N1 and HIV put together.

Grassley has a long record of  going after nonprofit organizations, specifically Christian ministries, that he believes are engaging in financial misconduct. In 2007, Grassley announced the Senate Finance Committee would investigate six prominent televangelist ministries who were believed to be improperly using their tax-exempt status as churches to shield lavish lifestyles.

Deace’s afternoon radio program has been the platform for sevearl calls for a social conservative to primary to Grassley in 2010.

Deace discussed the issue with Drew Zahn, editor of the conspiracy theory Web site World Net Daily, who said that while his cohorts have been “ridiculed and mocked” for continuing to follow the story, it simply won’t go away.

“We’re catching heat from almost every direction,” Zahn said.

Zahn and Deace started off blasting the “mainstream media” for not fully investigating an issue that deals with whether “we’re going to follow the Constitution at its most basic level.”

The pair then attempted to debunk any evidence produced that may contradict their theory — including a certificate of live birth and newspapers accounts at the time — ultimately concluding all materials could be easily obtained fraudulently or easily fabricated.

And even if that evidence was proven real, Zahn said the questions would remain.

“Even if we know he was born in Hawaii or not, we still have questions of whether he is a natural-born citizen,” he said. “On his own Web site, he admitted he was born of a father of Kenyan nationality… a dual citizen. Is that or is that not a natural born citizen? We don’t know.”

“Birthers,” as the believers of this particular conspiracy theory are known, believe that either Obama’s mother gave birth to the future president in Kenya in 1961 or that because Obama’s father was Kenyan and Obama has dual citizenship he ineligible to sit in the White House.

Of course, the birthers theories have been thoroughly discredited, and the U.S. Supreme Court last year dismissed a legal challenge to Obama’s citizenship. Despite this, the issue has gained several high-profile supporters, including CNN’s Lou Dobbs and conservative talker Rush Limbaugh.

This is not the first time Iowa’s largest radio station has dedicated large segments to birthers. Afternoon host Jan Mickelson has repeatedly discussed the conspiracy theory, interviewing numerous proponents who have brought lawsuits in regards to the issue.

Deace discussed the issue once before in January, when he interviewed the birther movement’s most high profile advocate, Orly Taitz, a woman news site Politico describes as “the Russian-born attorney/dentist who has become a kind of ringleader for the movement.” Among other things, Taitz has become famous of late for encouraging soldiers to disobey orders from a president who is “ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of U.S Armed Forces.”

Fong told Cedar Rapids ABC affiliate KCRG that while Iowans deserve the right to vote on a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as one man and one woman, he does not condemn those who disagree with him.

“I’m not embarrassed about where I stand on that issue,” Fong said. “But at the same time I don’t look across at anybody that has a different view. I don’t condemn them for what they hold so deeply.  And I invite everyone to the table.”

Brian Dumas, a political consultant with the firm Victory Enterprises and an adviser to Fong’s campaign, anticipated the answer would upset Deace and e-mailed him a transcript of the interview with the hopes of heading off any angry reaction.

Deace was not impressed, and responded quickly on his blog.

First of all, the idea “that I don’t condemn people that have a different view” is a ridiculous statement for a person that serves as essentially an elder at a Christian church to make.  The Bible constantly condemns people who advance evil, and isn’t shy about doing it.  It also condemns those who claim they know right from wrong but won’t take a stand, you know, kind of like Fong does in the [KCRG] transcript.

God says homosexuality is evil, Deace wrote, so Fong should have no problem condemning evil.

Why would Christians respect the views of those who want to advance evil?  Would Fong say the same thing about Islamic radicalism?  He’d have to, unless he doesn’t really believe homosexuality is evil and that’s why he’s saying such soft-headed psychobabble — trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

Deace then attacks Fong for not agreeing with another GOP gubernatorial hopeful, Bob Vander Plaats, that the governor can issue an executive order stopping same-sex marriage. Fong told KCRG that he “wouldn’t waste time signing an order that my legal staff said was unenforceable anyway.”

Constitutional scholars, as well as Vander Plaats’ other rivals for the Republican nomination in 2010, agree with Fong that the governor does not have the authority under Iowa’s Constitution to issue such an order.

Appearing on the show of controversial Christian radio host Steve Deace, Vander Plaats once again said if elected governor in 2010 he would issue an executive order stopping same-sex marriage until the legislature either passes a law legalizing it or passes a constitutional amendment banning it.

“I can’t give the people the right to vote on this, but I think I can mobilize people like [Senate Majority Leader Mike] Gronstal and [House Speaker Pat] Murphy by saying no more same-sex marriages until you step up and vote to make this law,” Vander Plaats said.

After doing so, he said he fully expects Democrats to try to remove him from office for “promoting lawlessness.”

“I would like to have that debate, because then Pat Murphy has to go back to his people in Dubuque and tell them we’re going to impeach Vander Plaats because he wants the legislature to do its job in the constitution and he also wants to give you the right to vote,” he said.  “I don’t think that would play very well.”

Mark Kende, director of Drake University’s Constitutional Law Center, said the governor lacks the authority to issue an executive order freezing a decision by the Iowa Supreme Court. And while they disagree on many things, that is “pretty well accepted constitutional law by scholars who are both conservative and liberal.”

If Vander Plaats were to issue such an order, it could result in a constitutional crisis the likes of which the country hasn’t seen since desegregation cases in the Deep South, Kende said. Local officials, who are responsible for issuing marriage licenses, would be stuck between the governor’s executive order and an earlier order from the Iowa Attorney General’s office explaining to county recorders that they have no authority to ignore the court’s ruling.

Ultimately, desegregation cases were settled in the south by the federal government using troops to support the court, an option that is unlikely in Iowa.

“Courts do depend on the executive branch for enforcement, and regular executive disobedience would result in numerous crises,” Kende said. “This is what has happened in some other countries where the executive ignores the judiciary, such as Zimbabwe to give just one example.”

Vander Plaats said the Iowa Supreme Court overstepped its authority when on April 3 it issued an order striking down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act and legalizing same-sex marriage.

“If the Supreme Court goes out of bounds, who holds them in check?” he said. “I believe that’s where the executive branch comes in, to hold them in check. “

How to oppose same-sex marriage has been a focal point of a debate raging within the Republican Party of Iowa. Last month, Republican U.S. Rep. Steve King of Kiron publicly criticized those calling on elected officials to ignore the court’s ruling, saying the only method available to Iowans to stop same-sex marriage is a constitutional amendment.

King’s opinion, which he shared in a guest column for The Des Moines Register, drew harsh criticism from Deace and conservative activist Bill Salier, who said elected officials must be willing to confront the judicial branch, as well as ignore decisions they disagree with.

More recently, Vander Plaats attacked another GOP gubernatorial hopeful, Christopher Rants, for saying the governor does not have the authority to issue such an order.

Conservatives contend that leadership in the state senate did not push as hard as Republicans in the state house to overturn the court’s decision.

Christian radio host Steve Deace criticized Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley, R-Chariton, during his drive-time program on Iowa’s largest radio station for “feeding constituents a line of bull” about doing everything possible to stop same-sex marriage.

He continued the assault on his blog.

“McKinley’s stubborn refusal to push the Senate rules for a vote on marriage like what was done in the House is either a classic case of Bob Michel disease, or a classic case of the smartest guy in the room not wanting to do the right thing because it wasn’t his idea,” Deace said.

Robert Michel is a former member of the United States House of Representatives from Illinois who was criticized by conservatives for being too easy-going and not fighting hard enough for Republican goals in the House during its long period of Democratic control.

Deace said that when the Republican caucus in both chambers decided on new leadership this year, many social conservatives considered McKinley one of their own and House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, a “puppet of the establishment.”

“Turns out the exact opposite, at least during the 200[9] session, was true,” he said.

The liberal blog Bleeding Heartland reports anti-McKinley fliers were being distributed in Pella paid for a Virginia-based conservative group called Public Advocate of the United States.

“Like a chicken, Sen. McKinley refuses to do what it takes to get a vote on the Iowa Marriage Amendment. He says he supports it, but he won’t force those who support the destruction of Iowa families to make their position public,” the flier says.

Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn also received criticism from Deace, who wondered why Strawn sent out an “Action Alert” e-mail to supporters on Friday that did not mention same-sex marriage.

“There is a disconnect,” Deace said. “Why in the world would you put a plank in your platform, and when that plank is under assault from your political opponents, and it is the number one story in the state, why wouldn’t you want to alert people that this is what we stand for and this is what we believe?”

Deace also questioned why McKinley and Strawn would not speak out in support of state Sen. Merlin Bartz, R-Grafton, during his push to encourage county recorders to deny same-sex couples marriage licenses as an “act of conscious.”

When contacted last week by the Iowa Independent about Bartz’s efforts, a spokesman for McKinley declined to comment and said all inquiries should be directed to Bartz.

Republican leadership seemed to respond to Deace’s admonishment Monday, with Strawn, McKinley and Paulsen issuing a joint statement on same-sex marriage blaming Democrats for the lack of action.

“Republicans in the Iowa Legislature made repeated attempts to begin the process of bringing to Iowans a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman only to be stopped cold by Democrat obstructionism and a lack of executive leadership from Governor Culver,” they said. “Whether it be the pursuit of a constitutional amendment to give Iowans the right to vote on this issue; the establishment of residency requirements to obtain marriage licenses; or the appointment of future judges–none of these options are possible as long as Chet Culver remains Governor and Democrats control the Iowa Legislature.”

In the House, Republcian lawmakers tried several times to force a vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, with each attempt ruled out of order. Rep. Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, even attempted to insert language in a Democratic tax plan defining marriage as between one man and one woman. In the Senate, McKinley made one attempt at forcing a vote on a constitutional amendment, requesting that Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, joining him in crafting the legislation. Gronstal refused and the matter was dead.

Democrat Becky Greenwald and Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Latham.

Greenwald, a seasoned behind-the-scenes politico who has spent little time in front of a microphone as a candidate, was graceful but tough.  She had lines of attack on her opponent ready, and she delivered them with clarity.  She knew how to let them hang in the air, avoiding the repetitiveness characteristic of a novice debater.

Latham, who has experience in Congress but has faced few truly close reelection campaigns, handled questions just as well, and with the deeper understanding of policy minutiae that incumbents always exhibit.

But Latham revealed his level of anxiety by going on the offense early and often, attacking Greenwald on taxes, health care, immigration and partisanship.  Rather than remain above the fray, Latham engaged his opponent as an equal.

That’s not something incumbents usually do if they have a comfortable lead.

On the issues

If the topics of debate are any indication of what 4th district voters are thinking, the economy, energy, health care, taxes, and the elusive notion of “bipartisanship” will decide the election.  Based on my notes, those are the five subjects that the candidates talked about the most.

The economy: The candidates have staked out positions on opposite sides of the $700 billion “rescue plan” (or “bailout”).  Greenwald supports it, and Latham voted against it.  Both candidates seem to see their positions as politically expedient, but political experts still aren’t sure how the bill will ultimately play with middle-class voters.

What we do know is that when the economy is the most important issue of a campaign, voters tend to gravitate toward the Democrat.  Advantage Greenwald.

Energy: Through 90 minutes of debating, neither candidate found a renewable energy idea worth opposing. Both candidates support an “all of the above approach” to energy, which means investing in a laundry list of technologies plus offshore oil drilling. Each seemed competent on the subject of energy, and both candidates tied renewable energy development to economic development.

But Latham also got to work in examples of federal funding he has secured for renewable energy projects here, even if that was never the focus of discussion.  Slight advantage Latham.

Health care: Greenwald and a sympathetic phone questioner both seemed to want to force Latham to pledge his support to Sen. John McCain’s health care plan, and they almost got their wish. But before Democrats could fire up the presses for a “Tom Latham wants to tax your employer-provided health care benefits” mailing, the incumbent hedged, saying he only supported the “principles” of McCain’s plan but that he couldn’t commit to anything.

Without McCain’s full plan, the only proposal to cut health care costs that Latham could name was a simple tax credit. Voters are pretty sure that health care reform is more complicated than that.

Greenwald, meanwhile, grabbed hold of Obama’s health care proposal, which is being featured in very moderate-sounding Obama campaign ads right now.  Democrats usually win on health care anyway, but in this debate, the differences between the two candidates were very clear.  Greenwald brought a more detailed proposal to the table, and she knew how to explain it.  Latham did not have the vocabulary to talk about the issue with the depth voters want.  Advantage Greenwald.

Taxes: Debates about tax policy are always more about accusations than they are about an individual candidate’s actual proposals. Latham and more than one phone questioner each asked Greenwald, roughly, “Why do you want to raise taxes?” Greenwald dealt with their questions with improved clarity each time.  By the end of the debate, she was able to make clear that she supports Obama’s tax plan, which only increases taxes on families earning over $250,000 per year.

But what Greenwald said about taxes will not matter, because any voter for whom taxes are the top issue is going to vote Republican. Advantage Latham.

Bipartisanship: There was a lot of talk of “partisanship” in Monday’s debate. Latham said he has a record of bipartisanship, and he accused Greenwald of negative campaigning. Greenwald said she would be bipartisan in Congress and accused Latham of voting with George W. Bush’s policies 95 percent of the time.

Latham’s rejoinder was that voting with George W. Bush 95 percent of the time is actually pretty good, and that Iowa’s Democratic congressmen vote with their party even more often than that. I’m not sure that holds water with voters. “Latham” and “Bush” in the same sentence always benefits Greenwald, no matter what the actual record is. Advantage Greenwald.

The final tally

Greenwald wins on points, largely because the policies she’s selling are more popular with voters than her opponent’s are these days.

But the bigger story is that it even came to this.  Latham and Greenwald engaged each other and debated as relative equals. We might just have a real race on our hands.

And one last thought to ponder: Latham is at odds with his party’s presidential nominee on the $700 billion “rescue plan,” on health care reform, on biofuels, and (presumably) on earmarks, given his seat on the Appropriations Committee. Meanwhile, Greenwald has embraced Obama’s proposals with open arms. That might tell us something about which presidential candidate has stronger coattails in the 4th district this year.

Update: The debate has concluded.

A liveblog of the event follows.  Find a more concise wrap-up here.

8:25 Closing statements

Greenwald: There are differences between her and her candidate.  Tom Latham’s record speaks for itself, and he has voted 95% of the time with George W. Bush.  “That is a partisan record, and I will go to Washington and listen to the people of the 4th district … and never forget who sent me there.”

“I really, truly understand” the troubles of the middle class.  “We need to make sure college is accessible.”

Latham: Loves WHO-Radio.  Points out that he has a lower partisan voting record than any of the Iowa’s Democrats.  “We’ve gotta get over this partisanship.”

“That’s why I’ve been successful with all of the initiatives I’ve put forth.”

Says he can go to almost any town in his district and see something he has earmarked for them.

—

8:20 Question from caller: Won’t tax increases on the rich be passed down to middle and lower income families?

Greenwald: If middle income families can receive tax benefits, that would free them up to spend more money on Main Street.  “The tax breaks for the wealthiest of us are not trickling down.”

“We need to rebuild our middle income families.”

Latham: Goes back to McCain’s health care plan: He supports parts of the plan, but he won’t commit.

Greenwald: Goes back to Obama’s tax plan, which she supports, and which she says would benefit everyone who makes under $250,000 per year.  And that’s most people in the 4th district.

—

8:17 Questions about oil and energy from phone caller.

Latham: “I have supported wind energy for years and years.  The folks in that business understand where I am.”

Greenwald: Says she supports more investment in renewable energy.

—

8:15 For each candidate: Would you vote for your party nominee’s health care plan?

Latham: Hasn’t looked at the details of McCain’s health care plan, so doesn’t want to say.  But he likes McCain’s plan to deduct health care costs.

Greenwald: Yes, she supports Obama’s health care plan.

—

8:12 Question from caller about affordable health care. Why should someone have to pay for other people’s health care?

Greenwald: Costs are skyrocketing, so “we are already being squeezed.”

Latham: It is not fair for people to have to pay for the health care of others.

Greenwald: It is a problem.  Half of all bankruptcies are caused at least in part by health care costs.

—

8:11 Question for Latham about military being deployed within the United States

Latham: “It is very illegal” to deploy troops within the United States.

—

8:09 Several questions from one call: Livelihood? Do you take money from Barney Frank, Charles Rangel, or Chris Dodd?

Greenwald: I worked for Pioneer Hybrid.  Background in agriculture.  To her knowledge, she has not received money from those three men.  90% of her contributions come from Iowans.

—-

8:07 Phone caller for Greenwald about abortion.

Greenwald: Wants abortions to be “safe, legal, and rare.”

Latham: “I’m 100% pro-life.”

That was quick.  Nobody wants to talk about abortion.

—

8:03 Phone caller says Americans are hostages of the IRS.  Says we should have “one straight tax.”  Or flat tax.

Greenwald: Supports simpler tax code, but right now we just have to “keep our heads above water.”

Latham: Also supports simpler tax code, but not sure about flat tax (right now).  Calls for a better national debate about it.

—

8:00 Break ends.  Caller says Greenwald is sounding “stiff.”  Accuses her of being a party hack, essentially.

Greenwald says she is running because she wants to listen to voters, not regurgitate partisan talking points.  Lots of anti-Greenwald callers.

—

7:53 Question from caller about health care: Does Greenwald support a single-payer health care system?

Greenwald: No, but she supports access for everyone.  “I very much support what Sen. Obama has been supporting” that “takes the best of both worlds.”  Emphasizes preventative care.

Latham: We need to work in a bipartisan way.  Supports pooling health care costs among businesses, making health insurance deductible.  Mentions shortage of nurses in Iowa, which he has put forth legislation to solve.  Also mentions inequity of medicare reimbursements in Iowa.

Greenwald: We’ve had a nursing story for a long time, and Latham waited too long to introduce a bill about it.

—

7:50 Question from phone caller for Latham: “Do you support keeping our troops in harm’s way in Iraq?”

Latham: “I am the first one to say let’s do it as quickly as possible,” but only after stability, etc.

“There has never been a system in place in Iraq” for buying things on the level of local government.

“I want to get our troops out of there with a successful” result.

Greenwald: Then why did Latham vote for funding as recently as June?

Latham: Has never voted ‘against the troops.’

—

7:47 Question from phone caller about partisanship, “didn’t quite get the answer out of Ms. Greenwald that I was hoping for.”  Greenwald’s web site has “often negative attacks.”

Greenwald: Disputes characterization of her communications.

Latham: Brings it back to Greenwald’s support of the bailout…

—

7:42 Question from phone caller about Becky Greenwald wanting to raise taxes.  (These are starting to sound like pretty obvious plants from Latham or his supporters…)

Greenwald: Tax cuts should go to “middle income families.”  Talks more about renewable energy and job creation.

Latham: Anyone who doesn’t want to extend the Bush tax credits doesn’t get it.  Taxing people more is “wrong.”  To raise taxes on small businesses “is simply the wrong thing to do.”

“To punish them for investing in their businesses — to punish them for hiring more people — is simply wrong.”

“And also you’d reinstate the death tax on everyone.”

Greenwald: Warren Buffet has said that the current tax system is unfair.

Latham: Warren Buffet will always find loopholes anyway.

7:38 Question from phone caller about price of gasoline and drilling:

Greenwald: Calls for “comprehensive” renewable energy policy.  Says driving a Flex-Fuel vehicle is nice, too.  Does not say yes or no to offshore drilling.

Latham: Says Greenwald didn’t answer the question, but he says his energy policy is an “all of the above” approach.

Emphasizes need for domestic oil supply.

Greenwald: Does agree with “all the options on the table” after all, she says.  But “only if we are committed to a comprehensive” renewable energy strategy.

—

7:33 Question from a phone caller:

“Would you have voted for this year’s Democratic budget” which purportedly raised taxes higher than ever?

Greenwald: Doesn’t want to say before she has seen the details.

Another question from a caller for Latham: Would you still support privatization for social security?

Latham: “Well I never have.”

Has never supported privatization of Social Security “in any way shape or form.”

Instead, supports a “Blue Ribbon Commission” for Social Security.

Greenwald: How can we talk about taking away entitlements “when people are needing it the most?”

Talks about universal health care, but doesn’t support socialized medicine.

Latham: Says he would never support cutting social security.

—

7:30 Greenwald asks Latham a question on immigration:

“We’ve had two raids in our district… Why didn’t he do something to lead us toward comprehensive immigration reform?” Greenwald asks, criticizing Latham for his inaction.

Latham: “This is rather interesting.  Even the immigration folks didn’t know that Postville was in the 4th District.” Says ICE didn’t even notify Latham “when they were gonna go in there.”

“There are some folks who want to give amnesty…” and Greenwald is one of them, Latham says.

“What happened in Marshalltown and Postville is a direct result of lack of enforcement of the laws for the last 20 years.”

Greenwald: Says she’s not for amnesty, but is for a clear path to legalization.

—

7:27 And the candidates get to ask questions of each other.

Latham “not really prepared” to ask a question, he says.  But he’s “somewhat surprised” with what he has seen on the internet and elsewhere.  Wants to know why Greenwald is going negative.

Greenwald: “What people are tired of is the hypocrisy of saying one thing in Iowa” and doing something different in Washington.

7:20 Third set of questions on foreign policy — Iraq and Afghanistan.

For Greenwald: How would you do things differently with regard for Iraq and Afghanistan?

Greenwald: First job out of college was working at a medical center for veterans.  “I understand what it takes” to take care of veterans.

“We need to be bringing our troops home from Iraq,” Greenwald says.

Afghanistan needs more troops.

“It is clear to me that by sending Tom Latham back to Congress that we will not begin the immediate and safe withdrawal of troops” from Iraq.

Latham: “Stay the course is not an option” because troops have done a good job.  “The ’surge’ has worked.”

“The Iraqi people are with us now.”

“We want to have our troops come out as soon as possible because we do have a real threat in Afghanistan.” But “The central front in the war on terror is — has been — in Iraq” but we’ve “driven them out” of Iraq now.

But Greenwald would vote for the bailout, which actually costs more than the Iraq war.  “I would never vote to take away funding for men and women in harms way.”

Greenwald chimes in: Why did you vote for a pay raise for yourself but not for soldiers?

Latham responds: “VFW just endorsed me.”

“No one has been a larger advocate” for people in uniform, Latham says.

Latham says there were no pay raise votes.  There were procedural votes that are construed to be pay raise votes.

—

7:16 Second set of questions on partisanship.

Greenwald first: Pledges to “make relationships from the beginning” with members of both parties, and accuses Latham of partisanship.

Latham: “This last congress has been by far the most partisan” he’s ever been a part of, he says.

Leadership writes bills “in a back room,” he says.

“All you have to do is look at my record … to see that the way you get things done is to do that on a bipartisan basis.”  Says Appropriations Committee does a good job at being bipartisan.

Says he hopes Congress will “wipe the slate clean” come January.  “I don’t think anyone’s ever heard me speak a partisan word out there.”

—-

7:10 First question is on the economy.

For Latham: Why did you vote against bailout?

Latham: Proposal had “no basis” for choosing $700 billion figure.  “There’s some oversight but with no teeth on that oversight.”

“It’s simply the wrong way to do it.”

For Greenwald: You said you would have voted for it.  Why?

Greenwald: “No one wants to vote and bail out CEOs who led a runaway train basically off a cliff.”

But Greenwald says she spoke to a voter on Main St. who said she would be affected by the economic problems, too.

“Make sure that we were doing what we could” rather than doing nothing.

Says Latham isn’t telling the truth about bipartisan record.  “He has voted 94% of the time with President Bush and the Republican party.”

Latham’s response: Thinks it’s strange that Greenwald’s first statement of policy was to give President Bush a blank check.  Says Congressmen Braley, Loebsack, and Boswell have more partisan voting records than he does, and that President Bush doesn’t actually vote, so Latham’s voting record couldn’t be compared to Bush’s.

“I understand we have to do something” to rescue the economy, but not this.

Greenwald’s response: There is accountability built into the bill including searchable online database.  Accuses Latham of “hypocrisy” for voting against the bailout even with flood relief attached.  Accuses Latham of turning his back on flood victims.

Latham: “There is no accountability.”  It will be out in the open, but no one can stop them from doing what they do.

—

7:07 Tom Latham’s opening statement:

Says Iowans “are fed up” with what’s going on in Washington, D.C.

Cites record for veterans, along with other earmarks.  “I am fortunate that I serve on the appropriations committee — that I am a ranking member on that committee.”

Emphasizes bipartisanship again.

7:06 Becky Greenwald gives her opening statement first.  Shout-out to her web site, BeckyGreenwald.com, right up front.

Emphasizes renewable fuels and rural economic issues.

7:05 And after the news, the debate begins.

During the show, broadcast in central Iowa on Newsradio 1040 WHO and in eastern Iowa on AM 600 WMT, Fallon will moderate a discussion between opposing sides of the “Yes to Destiny” sales tax proposition for Polk, Dallas and Warren counties. Those outside of the listening area can put a glass to the wall by using WMT’s live stream. The discussion will run from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.

Afterward Fallon and Lynn Huess, his partner in I’M for Iowa, will provide their take on the debate.

“Project Destiny” is a local option sales tax, the culmination of months of discussion among business and community leaders. The proposition will go before voters July 10.

Local campaign officials say the plan will raise $750 million over 10 years through the sales tax increase. Proceeds would be split into thirds: one-third for property tax relief in each of the 41 communities voting, one-third earmarked for publicly announced government plans and one-third for regional “quality of life” projects. Participating cities have set a 10-year plan for use of their portion of the funds.

Proponents believe property tax burdens will be reduced and regional quality of life amenities will be enhanced. This, in turn, will allow the region to retain current employers and employees while attracting new ones.

Opponents say this plan is “the largest local option tax increase in Iowa history” and point to an April report by the Tax Foundation. In that report, Iowa is listed as 18th in the nation for state and local tax burden. Iowans, according to the report, will pay 11 percent of their incomes in taxes to state and local governments this year.

If passed, the third of the tax earmarked for “quality of life” projects would be managed by a new 15-member board called the Tri-County Regional Authority. Funding would be distributed, according to YesToDestiny.org, for regional quality of life facilities (30 percent), recreational trails (25 percent), scientific, arts, cultural and historic preservation organizations (25 percent) and additional regional property relief through regional property tax equalization and transition (20 percent).