On the Campaign Trail with Ed Tibbetts

Charlie Cook, the respected political analyst for National Journal, changed his rating on Iowa’s 1st District congressional seat.

It’s one of five seats that Cook’s deemed more competitive since Saturday’s health care reform vote, according to USA Today.

The report moved off the “solid” list, meaning a sure bet that Braley would hold it, to the “likely Democratic” column.

From the report:

Braley’s eastern Iowa district isn’t a place where a vote for Democrats’ health care bill represents a politically unpopular move. But that hasn’t stopped Republicans from talking about this district in recent months, as personally wealthy businessman and Dubuque GOP official Rod Blum gears up for a race. Braley is a strong campaigner and fundraiser who should be fairly safe, but Blum’s spending capability and the larger political environment make the contest worth a peripheral look.

Incidentally, I met Blum at this week’s Scott County GOP fundraiser. He said he’ll make an announcement soon.

Earlier this week, I posted a video that showed U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley being jeered on the floor of the House last Saturday when he argued against a Republican maneuver to block a vote on the health care bill.

I didn’t get a chance to ask Braley’s reaction, but Aimee Steffen at the Waterloo Courier talked to him about it Tuesday.

Braley said he felt “abused,” according to the Courier article, which was posted last night.

More from the article:

“It’s very uncommon, because there’s supposed to be decorum on the House floor,” Braley said during a stop at Waterloo’s Alpha Express Inc. on his Health Care Reality Tour. “But it made me very proud to be speaking up for patient safety, and to talk about what is not being talked about on the other side of the aisle.”

Really interesting video of U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, being targeted by Republican catcalls late into the health care reform debate Saturday night.

Braley was chosen to respond to a Republican parliamentary maneuver that would have blocked a vote on the health care reform bill.

Republicans were arguing for caps on lawsuit awards, and Braley, a Waterloo lawyer, was the Democrats’ choice to respond.

Shortly into this remarks, Republicans began catcalling him, chanting “trial lawyer.” For a time, he had to stop and wait for order to be restored.

The parliamentary maneuver, called a motion to recommit, was defeated 247-187.

U.S. Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack will be the featured guest at Rep. Bruce Braley’s annual Bruce, Blues and Barbecue fundraiser in Waterloo. It’s this Sunday in Waterloo.

Rep. Bruce Braley has picked a new communications director. She’s Caitlin Legacki.

Legacki worked in the press shop in Iowa for John Edwards’ 2008 presidential campaign. Most recently, she worked for U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, D-North Carolina. And in between, she worked as the press secretary for Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s Senate campaign in New Hampshire.

Legacki is a graduate of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

More inside baseball: Jeff Giertz, the spokesman for U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, said today he’s leaving for another job.

Giertz says he’s going to work for the Senate campaign of U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-Louisiana. Melancon announced last month he will challenge Sen. David Vitter, R-Louisiana, next year.

Giertz has been with Braley since his initial congressional campaign, and so his name should be familiar to people around here.

No word on a replacement yet.

Iowa Gov. Chet Culver, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, also expressed their condolences over Sen. Edward Kennedy’s death.

The governor said:

“This is a very sad day for America. My prayers are with the Senator’s wife Vicki, his children, family members and all of those who loved him.

“Senator Kennedy was truly the lion and leader of the U.S. Senate, regardless of one’s party affiliation. His record of accomplishment is unmatched. Ted Kennedy was a kind and gentle public servant who cared passionately about people across the country and around the world, especially those without a voice. He fought every day for 47 years in the Senate to improve lives and help people achieve their hopes and dreams.

“Senator Kennedy had a wonderful sense of humor, he was always there for his family and friends, and he had an unwavering faith and a generosity of spirit. These qualities and his record in public service will continue to serve as an example to all of us.”

Grassley said:

“The United States Senate will never be the same without Ted Kennedy.  His presence was enormous.  He fought hard, debated intensely and worked tirelessly for what he thought was right.  Senator Kennedy and I had a different point of view on most every issue, but he was an ally like few others when he was on your side.  Senator Kennedy leaves a legacy as a public servant and policy maker, and my wife Barbara joins me in sending our deepest sympathy to his family.”

Braley issued this statement:

“With the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy, our nation has lost a great leader.  Senator Kennedy fought for what he believed in and cared deeply for our country.  He never stopped fighting for working families and those less fortunate than himself.  Respected by leaders from both sides of the aisle and people from all walks of life, his tremendous legacy will live on in the Democratic Party and in the Senate.”

Earlier, I posted on the ongoing feud between Rep. Bruce Braley and Sen. Chuck Grassley.

Here’s the text of Braley’s Huffington Post piece that kicked things off today. Following that is Grassley spokeperson Jill Kozeny’s response:

As the important health care debate in Congress moves forward, certain members of the Senate insist on moving backwards. One of those Senators is my friend and constituent, Chuck Grassley.

Grassley used scare tactics last week at a town hall meeting in Iowa to convince voters that optional coverage for end-of-life counseling in the House health care reform bill would force people to “pull the plug on grandma” (even though he supported a nearly identical end-of-life counseling provision in a 2003). Earlier this week, Grassley told reporters that even if a health care plan included the changes he’s been pushing for, he likely wouldn’t support it if it didn’t attract the support of more than a few of his GOP colleagues. Today, the Washington Post reported that Senator Grassley has begun calling for “scaled back” health care reform.

For someone who claims he wants to help forge a bipartisan health care plan, Senator Grassley sure isn’t acting very bipartisan. In fact, he’s been behaving like someone who wants to see meaningful health care reform defeated.

During his nearly thirty years serving in the Senate, Senator Grassley has earned a reputation as a “straight shooter” — someone who has been willing to take on powerful special interests even when his party has supported those special interests. He’s also been someone who may disagree with with you on policy, but has not resorted to playing loose with the facts to fit his point of view.

That’s why his recent behavior has been so disappointing. He should know that real leadership in Congress means putting the facts before fiction (no matter how difficult that might be), finding common ground, and persuading your colleagues to do the right thing. Grassley certainly didn’t ignore the facts when he pushed the Pentagon to cut wasteful defense programs. He certainly put facts before the Bush administration’s fiction when he stood up against reckless tax cuts for millionaires and broke with his party to support increased funding for children’s health insurance.

So when Chuck Grassley stands up in front of a crowd of anxious Iowa seniors and pushes a myth about the federal government “pulling the plug on Grandma” that’s been debunked by dozens of media outlets and fact-check groups (even Republican Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia called the claim “nuts”), when he questions the health care reform legislation’s “motivations,” you’ve got to wonder what’s changed about his motivations.

Senator Grassley is in a stronger position than just about anyone to bring Republicans on board with Democrats to achieve the health care reform we need. But when he uses the same rhetoric as pundits advising Republicans to “just kill it” and a Republican Senator who wants to make health care President Obama’s “Waterloo,” why would the President or Senator Baucus think he is their ally in achieving meaningful health care reform?

Sadly, it appears that Senator Grassley has decided to put his party before what’s best for the people of this country.

Here’s Kozeny’s response:

“Congressman Braley is the one who might like to go backwards and change his vote for Speaker Pelosi’s fatally flawed health care bill.  It does nothing to reduce health care costs, piles on deficit spending and sets in motion a government takeover of the health care system.  The Pelosi bill, which Congressman Braley voted for in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has been rejected loud and clear at the grass roots.  Unfortunately, it looks like Congressman Braley put his party duties as Vice Chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ahead of Iowans.  Meanwhile, Senator Grassley is moving forward by working for a viable alternative that would actually lower health care costs for employers, employees and families.  He’s working to stop reform that would bankrupt the next generation and put government bureaucrats between you and your doctor.  Bruce Braley can stand with Nancy Pelosi.  Senator Grassley is standing with Iowans.”

Iowa Lt. Gov. Patty Judge, U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley and Democratic Senate candidate Tom Fiegen will be on hand for the Scott County Democrats’ fundraising picnic Sunday.

Called “A Picnic in the Park,” the event will be from noon to 4 p.m. at the Whispering Pines Shelter at Scott County Park. The cost is $10 for adults, $5 for children under 12. The public is welcome.

Other local officials will be there, too.

Want more information, call 324-7130.

Sen. Chuck Grassley’s controversial comments about the government “pulling the plug on grandma” have reverberated all week, with Democrats outraged that the guy President Obama has praised for being an honest legislative broker appears to be siding with the “deathers.”

Sen. Grassley isn’t backing down. In fact, he blamed some of the questions over the provision in the House bill Thursday on the people who drafted it. Grassley says the language is confusing and open to interpretation.

Today, it’s U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, who is on the offensive. His office released a statement a little while ago criticizing Grassley for backing the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill that included language allowing Medicare to cover an  “individual’s need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.

Time magazine first reported on this section of the prescription drug bill last night, calling it identical to the provision in the House reform bill. Grassley was a major player in drafting the prescription drug bill.

Said Braley today:

“Senator Grassley continues to repeat the ridiculous claim that paying doctors to discuss end-of-life care with their patients is somehow ‘pulling the plug on grandma,’ yet in 2003 he voted for a bill with a nearly identical provision allowing Medicare to reimburse doctors for end-of-life care consultations.  It’s doublespeak like this that makes people cynical about Washington politicians.  Senator Grassley needs to stop the fear tactics and stick to the facts about healthcare reform.  We need a rational discussion so we can achieve much-needed reform in this country.”

Here’s the language at issue in the 2003 bill:

The conference agreement provides coverage of certain physician’s services for certain terminally ill individuals. Beneficiaries entitled to these services are those who have not elected the hospice benefit and have not previously received these physician’s services. Covered services are those furnished by a physician who is the medical director or employee of a hospice program. The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary’s need for pain and symptom management, including the individual’s need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning. Payment for such services equals the amount established for similar services under the physician fee schedule, excluding the practice expense component. The provision would apply to consultation services provided by a hospice program on or after January 1, 2005.

I’ll try to get a comment from Sen. Grassley’s office.

UPDATE: Here’s Grassley’s response.

“I’m shocked that Congressman Braley would attack a fellow Iowan before getting all of the facts. His statements over the past two days have been riddled with misinformation about what was said in my town meetings, and now he’s taking my vote in 2003 completely out of context. If Congressman Braley had actually listened to what I’ve said on this subject, he’d know that my support for the provisions in the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) are in line with my long-held view that advanced care planning is a good thing for families to do.  The MMA offers terminally ill patients a pain and care management evaluation and counseling about hospice care and other options. And it offers optional advice from a specialized hospice physician on advanced care planning. One could be assured that the provision of advice on advanced care planning in this context can be done in a correct manner and by an appropriate provider. I can’t say the same thing about what would happen under the provisions in the Pelosi bill. Under the Pelosi bill, all physicians risk losing quality bonus payments unless they report on whether they provide advanced care planning and adherence to that plan. Congressman Braley also misses the larger point when he fails to realize that the concerns about the advanced planning provisions in the Pelosi bill are made because they are proposed in the context of a bill that is ostensibly working to save money by spending less on health care in health care reform, and in a bill that creates a government-run plan that will surely lead to rationing of health care just like has happened in other countries that have government-run systems. It’s plain to see why Iowans and others are legitimately concerned about the unintended consequences of the House bill.”

To be continued?