If you are looking for more information on the “shift in strategy” that was stated by Bennahum Wednesday on the page in Minnesota and the page in Michigan, I encourage you to reach out to him and/or our parent company directly. I am not a company spokeswoman and it is doubtful that I hold the answers you seek.

What I want to provide is an update to our readers on what’s taken place here in Iowa.

The Iowa team, which was most recently comprised of Andrew Duffelmeyer and me, learned Wednesday of the shift described by Bennahum. Duffelmeyer, who began his tenure with us only a few weeks ago and I cannot praise enough for being a wonderful co-worker and talented and hard-working journalist, was let go. As I’ve already told him personally, I wish I had more to offer than my condolences.

As for me, I have a decision to make by the close of business on Friday. The decision, as it was explained to me, is not one of will I stay or will I go, but is centered on the timing of my departure. Regardless of my decision, the practical future of The Iowa Independent and the content archive that so many amazing journalists have contributed to for almost the past five years is out of my control.

When you boil everything down, I think the day-to-day obligation of a reporter is to gather information and provide readers with the story. The stories reporters tell aren’t always happy or pieces that we enjoyed creating, but we fulfill our obligation and do the job.

I know that was the case for me in 2008 when, after capturing images of the Cedar River engulfing my portion of the state, I ran several rain-soaked blocks back to my car and collapsed in a pool of my own tears on a nearby curb. Similar emotions emerged as a part of the reporting I did in the aftermath of the immigration raid in Postville, except in that case I cried alongside those I interviewed.

And, lest you think I’m just a teary-eyed chick who breaks down over laundry detergent commercials, other reporters have relayed — typically following a few drinks, mind you — that they have driven a few blocks down the road after an interview to pull over to think, smack their steering wheels or cry. Others have stopped an interview in mid-stream because of the emotional toll it was taking on their subjects and themselves.

The truth is that raw emotions cannot simply be observed; they are absorbed. The other truth is that sometimes the most mundane of story lines will unknowingly place a journalist on a collision path with an emotionally fraught individual. By my estimation, that’s the bittersweet part or, if you like, the double-edged sword of working as a reporter: you never really know what the day is going to hold.

There are good days and truly inspirational people all along the way, but the emotional minefield is one that reporters acknowledge and freely transverse. I think we do that because there is something within us that makes us want to tell the stories, to help others to understand something beyond themselves. We want to sound alarms when warranted and calm fears when needed. We want you to know what’s going on around you — even the unpleasant stuff and, perhaps, especially the unpleasant stuff.

I don’t yet know what my decision will be or, if I’m completely honest, if such a decision will continue to exist once I publish this post.

As has happened before, I have absorbed the emotional devastation that surrounds me, and all I really know is that I need to sit on the curb for a little while and make some sense of it before I can be of any help to anyone else.

Between now and Monday, maybe I’ll figure it out. If so, posts will resume here without another mention from me of what’s happened. If not … well, I want to thank you for taking my calls, answering my emails and, above all else, reading. I will forever be grateful for the journey and the people along the way.

In the words of Orson Welles, “If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story.”

LAKE VIEW — State Sen. Steve Kettering says he will not seek re-election next November, creating what amounts to an open seat for a new district that includes Carroll County and a vast swath of western Iowa.

“Fourteen years is enough,” said Kettering, a Lake View Republican. “I actually considered not running last time so it was a fairly easy call.”

Steve Kettering

“It was just time,” Kettering said. “I’ve always believed in a citizen legislature. I think fresh ideas need to come in.”

Kettering did say the atmosphere in Iowa politics is more challenging and rife with partisanship today than in his first years in Des Moines.

“It appears bravado and show have overcome substance in a lot of cases,” Kettering said.

The ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Senate Republican whip, Kettering was first elected to the Iowa House of Representatives in 1998 and was elected via special election to the Iowa Senate in January 2003 following Congressman Steve King’s election to the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Serving the citizens of Iowa has truly been an honor, and I will forever treasure all of the opportunities I have had to represent my constituents,” said Kettering, who is president of Farmers Savings Bank in Lake View. “I remain ever confident that Iowa’s best days are still yet ahead because of our wonderful people and welcoming communities.”

In the Senate, Kettering has always represented Carroll County, which he would have continued to do under the new post-census boundaries signed into law — should he have opted to run for re-election and won.

Kettering resides in Senate District 6 that includes Carroll, Sac, Buena Vista, Audubon counties and the eastern part of Crawford County.

Republicans have a decided advantage in the four full counties with 32 percent of the active 38,989 registered voters compared with 27 percent for Democrats. Independents are the largest contingent at 41 percent.

In Crawford County, Republicans have a 32 percent to 30 percent advantage over Democrats — with independents representing 38 percent of the active electorate. But the Crawford County portion of District 6 does not include Denison, which gives the Republicans a greater edge.

There are no sitting state senators living in District 6 territory other than Kettering.

State Rep. Gary Worthan (R-Storm Lake) is one possible candidate for the Senate seat. He did not return a call as of presstime today. State Rep. Dan Muhlbauer (D-Manilla) resides in Senate District 6 but said he is likely to seek re-election to the House.

“I’m planning on staying in the House, but the door is never closed,” Muhlbauer said.

Carroll County Ambulance Service director Bill Fish, a Republican, said he is considering a Statehouse run and has examined both House and Senate opportunities but is leaning more toward the former.

Republican Carroll County Supervisor Mark Beardmore, who has in the past openly expressed interest in serving in the Statehouse, said family considerations will prevail in 2012 and that he will likely seek re-election to his county office.

“I’d have to have a meteor strike me” to enter the Senate race, Beardmore said.

Former Audubon County Republican Party chairwoman Kathleen Parris — who has worked as a field staffer for President George W. Bush and presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) as well as former U.S. Rep. Greg Ganske (R-Iowa) — has been mentioned by Iowa GOP leaders as potentially a strong candidate for the Senate seat with Kettering’s departure.

But like Beardmore, Parris, 49, and a member of the Audubon County Republican Central Committee, said considerations as a parent have to come first in her life now and that she will not be a candidate for the State Senate.

Kettering will finish out his current term, which expires in January 2013. The upcoming session, which begins in January 2012, will be his last.

The City of Carroll — which will be the dominant economic force in the new district — has not been represented by one of its own residents in the Iowa Senate in about 40 years, since former State Sen. Art Neu (R-Carroll) left to become lieutenant governor in 1973. Following that, Carroll was represented by State Sen. Karl Nolin (D-Ralston), State Sen. Bill Hutchins (D-Audubon), State Sen. Al Sorensen (D-Boone), State Sen. Jerry Behn (R-Boone) and Kettering.

CARROLL — As he surged to the top of two national polls Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich spent nearly three hours at the Santa Maria Winery in Carroll on Monday, speaking with voters, taking questions, signing books and screening a movie he co-developed celebrating Pope John Paul II.

Gingrich also conducted a 10-minute interview with The Carroll Daily Times Herald and La Prensa, an Iowa Spanish-language newspaper, before going on air nationally with Fox News’ Sean Hannity from a makeshift, temporary studio on the west side of the winery.

It was Gingrich’s second visit to Carroll in the campaign cycle, and momentum had turned decidedly in his favor in the hours before he addressed nearly 200 people at John and Rose Guinan’s local winery.

Public Policy Polling on Monday showed Gingrich, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from Georgia, with 28 percent support in national GOP primary surveying. Businessman Herman Cain was in second at 25 percent with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney garnering 18 percent, according to the polling firm.

Another national poll of Republican voters released Monday — this one from CNN — had Romney at 24 percent, Gingrich at 22 percent and Cain at 14 percent in the race for the GOP presidential nomination.

“This is a year when substance and solutions matter,” Gingrich said. “I think like the conversation tonight, I don’t give them slogans. I don’t try to make them feel better with things that are patently untrue. And I think people are really looking for a leader who will work with them to develop real solutions.”

Newt Gingrich met with GOP caucusgoers at Santa Maria Winery in Carroll.

That considered, Gingrich said the series of nationally televised Republican presidential debates has helped his campaign, resurrected it really, because voters can assess him directly.

“Frankly, without the debates my campaign would have been dead because the news media wouldn’t have covered it, and I couldn’t have raised the kind of money that Mitt Romney and Rick Perry could raise,” Gingrich said.

One of the former House speaker’s major strengths is now coming to the fore with voters, he said.

“I’m the only national candidate running,” Gingrich said. “I’ve led a national movement to win control of the House.”

Gingrich noted that he played a key role with welfare reform and federal budget work in the 1990s.

“None of the other candidates have that type of background,” Gingrich said. “I think gradually it began to sink in to people.”

The Public Policy Polling group’s survey clearly shows that Gingrich’s momentum draws heavily on Republicans who have abandoned Cain, a former Godfather’s CEO who faces allegations of sexual harassment and has stumbled on foreign-policy questions in recent days.

In one instance, Cain clearly did not know that China has nuclear capabilities. The Daily Times Herald asked Gingrich if Cain’s lack of knowledge about a world superpower on a life-and-death military issue should be disqualifying for White House service.

“I think voters have to decide that,” Gingrich said. “It’s not my job to decide it. Different people have different strengths. Herman Cain is a very attractive and very articulate businessperson who has a very impressive background in business. He doesn’t have a background in government. Everybody has strengths and weaknesses.”

La Prensa asked Gingrich’s reaction to an often-repeated line from Cain about constructing a border fence with Mexico so that it can electrocute immigrants, and possibly even snare them in an associated moat stocked with alligators.

“It was a bad idea,” Gingrich said.

He added, “I hope he was joking. I’d like to think he was joking.”

Gingrich then turned to his own immigration plans, calling for control of the border in a way that is “human and practical.”

“I’m working on an immigration program which is firm but at the same time has a human aspect to it that I think most Hispanic Americans would appreciate,” Gingrich said.

Earlier, in a question-and-answer session with voters in the winery, Gingrich said he wanted to impose severe penalties for employers who hired undocumented workers. Moreover, he put forward a plan modeled on the Selective Service System used by the military in World War II in which local committees of citizens could help determine the immigration status of a city’s illegal residents based on factors like how long they’ve lived in the area, family roots and contributions socially and in business.

Gingrich said rhetoric about deporting all illegal immigrants isn’t realistic.

“I think it’s very unlikely the American people are going to break up families,” Gingrich said.

In other remarks to the audience, Gingrich said he is “deeply opposed to raising taxes” in a recession. He said opening up offshore drilling in the United States is a way to boost revenue through royalties. Gingrich also had strong comments on education, saying schools too often seek to provide students with unearned self-esteem and academic diplomas or degrees.

“None of the Founding Fathers would think that made any sense because it’s fundamentally a lie,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich, a former history professor at West Georgia College, reminded the audience that President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for Americans to pray on the radio during the hours after D-Day and at other points in World War II.

A president today would be challenged if he took such measures, Gingrich said.

“We’d probably have an ACLU lawsuit against the president,” Gingrich said.

In the interview with The Daily Times Herald Gingrich said he wants to take federal money away from Planned Parenthood and funnel it into an adoption-promotion program.

“I come out of a background where my father was adopted and I was adopted,” Gingrich said. “We have a very deep sense that this culture has made it all too easy to end a life than to find a way to encourage a life.”

Much of the crowd at the winery stayed after Gingrich’s remarks to watch the movie “Nine Days That Changed the World” about Pope John Paul II’s historic nine-day pilgrimage to Poland in June 1979 created a revolution of conscience that transformed Poland and fundamentally reshaped the spiritual and political landscape of the 20th Century.

Gingrich and his wife, Callista, a former congressional staffer and graduate of Luther College in Decorah, along with a Polish, American, and Italian cast, explore what transpired during these nine days that moved the Polish people to renew their hearts, reclaim their courage, and free themselves from the shackles of Communism. The film was produced in partnership with Citizens United Productions.

Republican presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry and his Super PAC are continuing a media blitz at Des Moines’ top network TV stations, while other candidates and issue groups have gone off the airwaves.

Perry has spent $44,693 at KCCI, the local CBS affiliate, for ads running from Nov. 15 to Nov. 21. Since he began running ads in late October he’s spent $165,400 at KCCI and WHO, the local NBC affiliate.

And Make Us Great Again, a pro-Perry Super PAC, spent $10,455 at KCCI for ads running from Nov. 15 to Nov. 23. The group has spent $58,581 at KCCI and WHO since it began running ads in early November.

The combined total for Perry’s campaign and Make Us Great Again puts pro-Perry spending past that of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Paul had been leading all candidates in spending on KCCI and WHO, but has no ads scheduled to run this week.

Paul has spent $190,313 at the two stations thus far; U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) hasn’t purchased ads at the stations since mid-August; and other candidates have yet to delve into the TV ad battle at the networks. Although it appears Herman Cain’s campaign is preparing to run ads at KCCI.

Crossroads GPS, which has so far spent $186,556 at KCCI and WHO on ads attacking U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Des Moines), has also stopped running ads.

False claims on Environmental Protection Agency regulations made in a Herman Cain ad aren’t worth responding to, a spokeswoman for the Sierra Club says, claiming voters are smart enough to see through political rhetoric in the ad.

Herman Cain

But Steve Grubbs, Cain’s campaign chairman in Iowa, said Tuesday the campaign is more inclined to believe farmers when it comes to potential EPA regulations than the regulators themselves.

Maggie Kao, national press secretary for the Sierra Club, said she’s not surprised Cain’s campaign would run the ad.

“The fact of the matter is politicians buy ads all the time that are factually untrue,” Kao said. “I don’t think Herman Cain’s the first one to do that and I don’t think he’ll be the last. This is all to be expected from someone like Herman Cain who has complete disregard for the facts.”

Kao said most Americans would find it hard to believe that the EPA would worry about dust from farms when there are so many other concerns. She said that myth, along with the idea of regulating cow flatulence, “seems pretty far fetched to most people.”

“We’re not spending a lot of time pushing back on these myths simply because we think the American people are smarter than that and it’s a bit of an insult to even be talking about this non-issue,” Kao said.

Politicians have found it easy to put farmers against the EPA using scare tactics, Kao said. But polling shows most Americans are in favor of the work the agency does.

A nationwide survey from Public Policy Polling found support for EPA protections crosses party lines. The survey of 1,249 voters conducted in early October has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points.

The poll found 78 percent of people believe the EPA should protect air and water, including 62 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of independents. And 75 percent support the EPA overall, including 55 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of independents.

“It seems that there’s a very loud minority out there talking about the EPA in a negative way but that doesn’t jive with what we know from our own polling and experience talking to the American people,” Kao said.

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain’s campaign appears to be readying to run ads at Iowa’s leading network TV station, according to filings at KCCI-TV in Des Moines.

Leslie Gillette contacted the advertising department at the local CBS affiliate on Nov. 11 on behalf of Friends of Herman Cain, requesting rates for 30-second ads between Nov. 19 and Jan. 3. Gillette works for Victory Enterprises in Davenport, a conservative political consulting, technology and market research company.

Steve Grubbs, founder and CEO of Victory Enterprises, is Cain’s Iowa campaign chairman. He’s also a former state representative and chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa.

The Cain campaign last week released TV ads running statewide on FOX News Channel. A spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency said on Monday the claims made in those ads – that the EPA wants to regulate methane from cattle and dust from farms – are untrue.

Iowa U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Cumming) can count himself among the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, according to a USA Today analysis of financial disclosures of members of Congress.

Harkin has an estimated net worth of $16.6 million, putting him among the 57 members of Congress or 11 percent that are worth $9 million or more and thus in the wealthiest 1 percent.

The wealthiest 1 percent measurement has become popular in recent months as Occupy Wall Street demonstrators and others have begun referring to themselves as “the 99 percent,” decrying wealthy Americans and corporations they say aren’t paying their fair share in taxes.

Other members of the Iowa Congressional delegation aren’t included in the wealthiest 1 percent. U.S. Rep. Tom Latham (R-Ames) is worth $5 million; U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-New Hartford) is worth $3.2 million; and U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Des Moines) is worth $1 million.

U.S. Rep. Dave Loebsack (R-Mount Vernon) is worth $499,000; U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Waterloo) is worth $435,500; and U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-Kiron) is worth $240,000.

The wealthiest members of Congress are U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Cal.), at $448.1 million; U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), at $380.4 million; and U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), at $231.7 million (most of which is courtesy of his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry).

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is worth $6.8 million; and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is worth $27.2 million.

House Speaker John Boehner is worth $4 million; House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) is worth $101.1 million; and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) is worth $5.4 million.

Net worth doesn’t include primary residences or other personal property.

A new poll from Bloomberg News shows likely Republican Iowa caucusgoers split four ways between Herman Cain, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

But perhaps the most interesting finding of the poll, conducted Nov. 10 to 12, is that 60 percent of respondents said they “could be persuaded” to support another candidate. And with seven weeks before the nation’s first presidential nominating contest, another 10 percent said they have “no first choice candidate.”

Just 29 percent said their “mind is made up” on who they’ll vote for to be the Republican nominee to take on President Obama.

Romney, the perceived national frontrunner, and others may also note just 14 percent of those polled voted for him in the 2008 caucuses, while 58 percent either voted for someone else or didn’t participate. Another 9 percent voted for Paul in 2008, further suggesting the race is wide open.

And Gingrich, who’s enjoying a surge in polling in Iowa and nationwide, may take some pause from the results as well. The poll found 48 percent of voters would rule out voting for a candidate that’s been married three times and had extramarital affairs.

But those polled also said social issues aren’t the most important factor: 24 percent said they are, compared to 71 percent who said fiscal issues are the most critical.

Those findings line up with the poor support measured for U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who have focused much of their message on social issues. Bachmann has 7 percent support in the poll, and Santorum has 6 percent.

The poll, conducted Nov. 10 to 12 by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, includes 2,677 interviews with Iowa voters, 503 of which said they were likely to participate in the Jan. 3 caucuses. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.

Download full poll results here.

A bill recently introduced by congressmen from Pennsylvania and Illinois could have a far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest union workers on Aug. 1.

Members of Minnesota and North Dakota’s congressional delegations have repeatedly warned that the company’s lockout could help undermine the congressional consensus around protections for the sugar industry.

“There are members of Congress whose natural constituency is agriculture; some who see themselves as champions of business, and others who fight for workers,” U.S. Sen. Al Franken wrote in late August. “Knowing that the program has worked so well for so many years for the hardworking growers who produce such a large percentage of our nation’s sugar beets and for the dedicated workers and skilled management, who turn those beets into the highest quality sugar in the world, has played no small role in creating this consensus.”

Big Sugar has maintained support from Congress by continuously lining the campaign coffers of both Republicans and Democrats, although there is also a tangible discontent among industries that use sugar products, who find domestic prices to be too high. Those upset with American Crystal Sugar’s labor practices could join with these discontented industries to repeal the protections.

Enter U.S. Reps. Joe Pitts (R-Penn.) and Danny Davis (D-Ill.) who introduced a bill that would protect the other sweet-tooth industries: candy companies that lie within their districts.

“We’ve heard from his constituents that the price of sugar is affecting business, it’s affecting jobs,” says Pitts spokesperson Andrew Wimer, who adds that Davis, the Chicago Democrat co-sponsoring the legislation, cites examples of factories that have shut their doors because of the high price of sugar.

The Free Market Sugar Act would repeal the sugar loan program and amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (known as the Farm Bill), perhaps the most important piece of legislation impacting U.S. sugar interests. Written every five years, the Farm Bill helps sugar growers with farm subsidies (which some dismiss as “corporate welfare”) and a series of quotas that tightly control the supply of imported sugar, a benefit to the handful of American sugar producers who pocket around $1 billion in excess profits a year, and a detriment to candy companies that buy U.S. sugar at prices two to three times higher than the global market rate.

Federal legislation also calls for the sugar program to be operated on a no-cost basis, a provision some sugar insiders project will remain for years to come.

“In general, [the Free Market Sugar Act] seeks to reform the sugar program so that the government is not controlling how much sugar is produced and imported,” says Wimer. ”It loosens the controls on production and importation, so that the U.S. price for sugar can be more closely aligned with the world price.”

In addition to amending the sugar price support program, the bill pushes for more transparency in the sugar industry, and an overhaul of how it does business. If enacted, the bill would replace quota import provisions with a tariff rate quota. “Right now the USDA is tightly controlling how much raw cane sugar comes into the U.S.,” says Wimer. “Instead of blanket eliminating quotas, we are modifying it so it’s not as unfair to the current market.”

Pitts and Davis have also recently announced the formation of the Congressional Sugar Reform Caucus, a bipartisan group that also includes Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Jean Shaheen (D-NH).

The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.

The television ad from Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, running statewide on the FOX News Channel, erroneously claims the EPA wants to regulate methane from cattle and dust from farming activities.

“If you have to choose between Iowa farmers and Washington regulators, we will defer to the opinions of the Iowa farmers,” said Steve Grubbs, who’s also a former state representative and Republican Party of Iowa chairman.

David Bryan, a spokesman for the EPA, said Monday “there’s no truth to that at all” when asked about the methane regulations. He also noted EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson wrote a letter to members of Congress dispelling the farm dust regulation rumors.

But Grubbs — and apparently Cain’s campaign — aren’t convinced by the EPA’s statements. Grubbs stopped short of saying the EPA is lying, instead saying it’s responding to existing regulations and not potential future regulations.

“This is a concern that farmers have about the future and farmers have been through this before where they’ve been told one thing by the EPA and had negative outcomes,” he said.

Grubbs hopes methane from cows and farm dust will continue to be unregulated. But he said Iowa farmers don’t believe that’s the case, and he doesn’t think it’s misleading to suggest to voters those regulations are coming.

“I don’t think it’s misleading,” Grubbs said. “If farmers believe that this is the near future for them, then why shouldn’t we believe them? Who knows agricultural regulation better, the EPA or the farmer? We believe the farmer does. It just depends on who you trust as your source.”