Bleeding Heartland is a community blog for Democrats and progressives in the state of Iowa. Join up, post your thoughts as comments or diaries, and help build up current majorities and keep our leadership honest.
As is often the case, the "mainstream" media nowadays is pushing a "conventional wisdom" line that has only one major problem – it’s largely or completely wrong. In this case, the "wisdom" is that voting for limits on carbon pollution is bad politics. The polling indicates it’s far more complicated than that.
For instance, the latest CBS/NY Times poll indicates that nearly 90% of Americans believe U.S. energy policy needs either "fundamental changes’ or "to be completely rebuilt," while 97% of Americans are "angry" or "bothered" by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Those percentages hardly appear to indicate a status quo, "conventional wisdom" electorate on this issue, or an automatic political downside to making fundamental changes in U.S. energy policy.
Perhaps that is why, when you actually look at the 17 Democrats up for reelection this year (Bayh, Bennet, Boxer, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan, Feingold, Gillibrand, Inouye, Leahy, Lincoln, Mikulski, Murray, Reid, Schumer, Specter, Wyden) and subtract out those retiring (Bayh, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan) or defeated in a primary (Specter), you find that the vast majority – all except for Blanche Lincoln - are in favor of climate and energy legislation. Let’s take a look.
Michael Bennet- What could be clearer than this recent quote, "The best way to limit carbon pollution is for Congress to pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill." Barbara Boxer- A climate champion by any measure Russ Feingold- Issued a statement declaring, "Climate change is real and we need to address it. By blocking action on climate change, the Murkowski resolution would have stalled our march toward energy independence through more efficient vehicles, alternative fuels and renewable energy, all of which can spur new American jobs." Kirsten Gillibrand - Listed as a definite "yes" on a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill by E&E News Daniel Inouye- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Patrick Leahy- He recently stated, "Let us not be known as the Congress that continued to punt, pass and kick on some of the crucial issues like these, on which the American people are looking for solutions, not procrastination." Barbara Mikulski - Listed as a definite yes on a comprehensive, clean energy and climate bill by E&ENews Patty Murray- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Harry Reid – Has called for "bring[ing] comprehensive clean energy legislation before the full Senate later this summer." Chuck Schumer- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Ron Wyden- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews
And let’s not forget these two letters – one on March 19 to Harry Reid and the other on January 26 to President Obama - showing 33 Senators (not even counting John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, who didn’t sign either letter but obviously are champions on this issue, plus most likely others as) clearly calling for climate legislation.
So, why is it that we keep seeing the perception in the "mainstream media" that a vote for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation is bad politics? Perhaps because of the unfortunate tendency of the "mainstream media" to keep recycling quotes from a few loud Senators -- like Byron Dorgan and Evan Bayh -- who just happen to be exiting the scene altogether for potentially "greener" (and not in the environmental sense!) pastures. For the "mainstream media," recycling their preferred narrative may make a good story (or the story they want to tell, for whatever reason). In politics, however, perception is nine tenths of reality, and in this case the reality is that there is far too much at stake for this country to rely on "conventional" wisdom, especially when the facts – those troublesome things - tell a very different story.
In this context, this past Friday, Greg Sargent of The Plum Line asked an important question regarding clean energy and climate legislation in the U.S. Senate: "Can A bold new crop of Senators save carbon limits?" Sargent’s intriguing thesis was that[,] "[i]f carbon limits have any prayer of surviving in the Senate's energy reform bill, it may turn on the efforts of one group: The energetic freshman and sophomore Senators that are pushing hard to keep carbon limits alive." Sargent pointed to an interview with one of those freshmen, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, in which he argued that "There's a lot of new energy in those two classes, and they recognize that this is the moment."
In short, what Merkley’s saying is that it’s time for Democrats to stop listening so much to the "old guard" of Senators who are retiring. Instead, Merkley makes the case for paying more attention to the Senate freshman (and sophomores), who by definition were elected relatively recently and, therefore – at least theoretically - might have their fingers closer to the pulse of the public than the old timers. In part, the question is whether there could be a "generational" difference going on here. Not "generational" in the chronological sense, in which "younger" Senators are more pro-environment than "older" Senators. But, perhaps, "generational" in the sense of "political age," as in "how long have they been in Washington, DC?"
Given the analysis above, we might want to add "members in cycle" to Merkley’s admonition about listening more to freshmen then to old timers. Because the fact is, the majority of Democrats actually facing the polls this November are in favor of taking action on energy independence, clean energy, and holding corporate polluters accountable. Perhaps this is because they are listening to what the public is clearly demanding, which is fundamental change in U.S. energy policy? And perhaps they are not listening to a "conventional media" narrative which is completely wrong? Regardless of the reason, it appears at the moment – and certainly on this issue - that Democrats would be better served by listening more to the folks facing public opinion, as well as those elected more recently, and less to the ones preparing to depart for "greener" pastures.
In the U.S. House district five Democratic primary race, Matt Campbell has done well at picking up labor endorsements. There is one thing that stands out to me about this race's endorsements. The only endorsements by politicians have gone to Mike Denklau. Two highly regarded former politicians, Roger Wendt and Berkley Bedell, believe Denklau to be the best candidate to represent our district. The only politician endorsements Campbell has are the ones he wants to fool you into thinking he has. Throughout the campaign, a large portion of photos on Campbell's website and on his literature show him with either Vice President Joe Biden or U.S. Senator Tom Harkin. These are misleading as neither politician has endorsed him. This type of political maneuver which can be successful, but also dishonest reminds me of the 2002 Newark, NJ Mayoral race. Incumbent Sharpe James sent out literature with him pictured with Bill Clinton to trick people into believing he had been endorsed. This tactic helped James defeat challenger Cory Booker. I am not fooled by Campbell's tactics. I will be supporting Mike Denklau, the honest candidate, on June 8th.
40 days from today - on May 18 - we will see two HUGE primaries for U.S. Senate. Even though these races aren't in Iowa, they impact Democrats across the country and, well, the entire country as a whole.
In Pennsylvania, Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak will try to upset Republican-for-decades Arlen Specter.
In Arkansas, Democratic Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter will try to upset corporate lackey Blanche Lincoln.
These two races are tremendously important to defining who and what the Democratic Party is and what we will be fighting for.
If you can volunteer for these candidates (or encourage friends and family in Pennsylvania and Arkansas to do so), that would be amazing.
Of course, if you can help with a contribution to either or both via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page as soon as possible, it will make a big impact.
Polling shows that both Specter and Lincoln are at risk of - if not likely to - hand these Senate seats over to far-right-wing Republicans. (And, even if these two retain the seats, that's not much better on many key issues.)
Congressman Sestak and Lieutenant Governor Halter winning these primaries are critical to keeping these seats in truly Democratic hands. Your support can help make that happen! Please hop over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page right away to make a contribution - an investment in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to pull out an old expression - and show your support.
Thanks SO much for any support you can provide. 40 Days.
Part of it is the disillusion borne of a youth squandered and a middle age fraught with emotional fragility and a stunning lack of honest effort on my part. My personal failures are large and deep. Brought up to be selfless - to be "Christian" in the best possible sense - to put others before myself, to turn the other cheek, and to give my life over to the benefit of others, I did not do it. I squandered the promise I showed as a youth. I failed to develop and nurture my special talent for music, and my ability to write both music and words. I have been selfish rather than selfless.
The compromise in the House is not real Healthcare reform. Although our country desperately needs Healthcare reform just supporting any bill offered is not progress. After Corporate Democrats and Republicans have gotten a hold of the bills in the House and Senate they are so watered down that they will not be anything that will do much good.
(An important diary on a topic that doesn't get much media attention. - promoted by desmoinesdem)
Join the discussion for Rural Progressives on our issues, challenges, and candidates for 2010 at Hillbilly Report. City Slickers are more than welcome too!!
When one thinks about children in poverty in many regions of the country one normally thinks about children living in urban societies. While much child poverty exists in urban conditions the fact is that rural Americans face even a greater challenge uplifting their children from poverty. New statistics are very disturbing for those of us raising children in rural areas of the country.
Greetings from Kentucky to the Iowa Progressives on Bleeding Heartland. I created an account and lurk here from time to time, but try to respect the Iowa-based format. I must say I enjoy reading here and much of the writing and comments.
I haven't posted on here in quite a long time, but some of you know me. I work for Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. We wanted to let you all know that some of our candidates are getting up on network TV in the final two weeks of the campaign and wanted to let you know where you can see the ads.
The Republican machine has gone "all in" on the Iowa House. Senator Wieck (Senate Minority Leader) has all but given up on picking up seats in the Senate and with Harkin not having a credible opponent it's all about the house.
So, if you are interested in helping out a local House Democratic candidate - please contact your local Democratic central committee or the Iowa Democratic Party. They can direct you to where you need to go. Plus, you can contribute the House Truman Fund via ActBlue.
Securing the votes in Congress to pass real immigration solutions into law isn't going to be easy. The next President - no matter who wins - will need to lead his own party first to get it done.
Just yesterday House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer was telling us that he'd basically lost control over House Democrats and that they were the ones forcing his hand in this ridiculous compromise over FISA that would grant big telecommunication companies immunity over their warrantless wiretapping and other exercises. At about 11:30 this morning I get an email from the office of the majority leader telling me that between the House and Senate majority and minority leaders of their respective intelligence committees that a compromise has been reached--and according to the Wall Street Journal, that compromise essentially include immunity.
As David Kurtz points out at TPM, it is a ridiculous compromise that creates such a weak standard for "conditional immunity" that just about any telecom company could meet.
If Hoyer thinks he's lot control now (but then regained it to tout this compromise) let's show him what a lack of control looks like when the blogosphere puts the pressure on his office and Congressional Democrats across the country not to vote for this POS compromise.
CALL NOW!
Here's the switchboard number for the Majority Leader's Office: 202-225-3130
You can reach Iowa's congressmen at these numbers:
IA-01, Bruce Braley (D): (202) 225-2911
IA-02, Dave Loebsack (D): (202) 225-6576
IA-03, Leonard Boswell (D): (202) 225-3806
IA-04, Tom Latham (R): (202) 225-5476
IA-05, Steve King (R): (202) 225-4426
Remember to be polite and concise, expressing your opposition to the FISA Amendments Act (H.R. 6304) and asking for your representative to oppose it as well.
If you get a response one way or the other on how they'd vote, leave a note in the comments.
It is probably still an inconvenient or touchy time to be talking about this with all of the truly disastrous flooding coming to an end in Iowa and the cleanup just beginning. But it has to be said: we weren't truly prepared for this kind of disaster and we have to take steps to prevent it from happening in the future.
Brad Johnson, a research associate at the Center for American Progress and a blogger at their Wonk Room policy blog, brought my attention to a couple of his posts on the terrible flooding and storms in the Midwest this summer, particularly in Iowa. And in those posts he makes a couple of fascinating points.
First, he notes Sen. Chuck Grassley's hypocrisy in calling attention to the complacency over severe weather (speaking on the Senate floor about the deadly Parkersburg tornado) yet voted to filibuster the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.
Second, he notes an unfortunate quote from Gov. Chet Culver about our inability to "anticipate or prepare for" these types of events. The facts are that reports since at least 2000 have been forecasting the types of weather patterns Iowa has been experiencing over the last couple of years. See the link above for more information at Johnson's post.
It seems clear that leadership on both sides of the political spectrum in Iowa have failed us. They are not considering the big picture when it comes to environmental concerns in the state of Iowa. And statewide environmental groups aren't putting the pressure on local and state officials to keep them accountable either.
We need better and bolder leadership on the broad issues of global climate change and environmental issues in Iowa. Whether or not you want to attribute the cause of these terrible weather patterns to global climate change, call them a natural aberration, or simply just call them normal, our leaders should be considering some important things when moving forward with reconstruction. Bill Becker at Climate Progress offers more details, but here is his list which he deems lessons from an angry planet:
We need to put unprecedented pressure on our national leaders to get serious about mitigation and adaptation.
It's past time to rethink national flood control and water management strategy.
When we repair and rebuild disaster-damaged buildings and infrastructure, we should do so with cutting-edge mitigation and adaptation in mind.
Groups like the Iowa Global Warming Campaign, the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Iowa Environmental Council, and any other group committed to protecting and defending Iowa's environment should be tackling issues like this. Granted, there are concerns about hog lots, Iowa's waterways, and coal power plants to be concerned about as well. Heck, even 1000 Friends of Iowa should be concerned about future development that not only is environmentally-friendly but that protects families and businesses on or near flood plains.
The state needs leadership on these pressing issues. We call events like these "100 year floods" and "500 year floods" for a reason. The frequency with which they occur is not what is implied, but the the likelihood that they will. In just a 15 year period of time, we've experienced drastic periods of extreme drought and extreme precipitation. You can even go back to periods in the 1980s (particularly around 1984) and see the same type of patterns, but with less severity. We are certainly experiencing more severity with more frequency. This is a result of global climate change. We aren't taking the threats seriously and we aren't preparing ourselves for the future--either by accommodating the tragic effects that are likely or by acting to stop these events from happening in the first place.
The big debate in Iowa that is now emerging as the flood waters head downstream and leave the state is how to pay for all of the destruction and prepare for the reconstruction. Some want to use the state's rainy-day fund and others are looking at incurring state debt as an option. In the end, the debate will be politically charged about fiscal issues and not the bigger picture. Democrats and Progressives in Iowa have to think big picture or our meager political gains (and the state itself) will be washed away, no pun intended.
There seem to be two distinct ideas emerging for financing the massive reconstruction project Iowa will have to enact to deal with the tragic and disastrous floods we've experienced this spring (on a quick side note, I sure hope that summer fares us better). The first is to tap into the state's so-called "rainy day" fund (no pun was intended, I'm sure) and the other is to borrow money and essentially create debt. Both are the logical responses to a natural disaster of this magnitude. I think it was a Johnson County emergency management official who said this was "our own Katrina." Whether he meant that in terms of sheer destruction or bad planning or reactions to the event, I'm not sure. But the statement still leaves an impact.
At first glance, Gov. Culver's idea would seem to the most politically feasible and publicly attractive option on the table. The state and taxpayers won't have to incur debt or use their taxes to pay off the bills because they'll just use the extra money they have right now to reconstruct Iowa. But I think there should be serious consideration of incurring debt to finance the reconstruction.
To me, the root of the problem is whether we want to rebuild or reconstruct what has been destroyed. Those mean different things. Rebuilding implies we'll bring things back to the status quo, maybe with some minor improvements. Reconstruction implies a step forward and desire to plan and implement improvements and to change the way we do things. Iowa needs the investment in the future and needs to show that the state has the ability and capability to plan effectively, plan efficiently, and act with speed to solve problems and fix what has broken.
Incurring debt isn't such a bad thing, as David Yepsen told us yesterday. There are reasons to consider it. Tapping into the rainy day fund isn't a bad idea either. But will either one be enough?
The special legislative session to deal with this issue is going to happen; it has to. But the debate will be a lengthy one. And it will result in tough decisions. Contrary to what others argue, waiting to see what the federal government will pay for is not an option. If this truly is "our Katrina" then we all know that federal disaster response is horrid. The state must act soon.
Desmoinesdem has been posting some links from the EENR Blog.
A brief history: EENR initially stood for Edwards Evening News Roundup. Edwards supporters posted nightly diaries about John's campaign and what he stood for on the Daily Kos from April 4, 2007-Feb 1, 2008. When the campaign suspended and most of the other progressive blogs focused on the horse race, some JRE supporters decided to start our own blog to discuss issues facing all of us, and not just be a support group blog for disenfranchised JRE supporters. The EENR editorial team believes that along with the issues, they (we) should advocate for more and better downticket candidates that support a more bold, progressive agenda on Capitol Hill and in some instances, state races. That is why EENR endorsed Ed Fallon.
Tonight EENR proudly endorses Kevin Miskell, IA-04 who is a true John Edwards Democrat. Here's why.
Miskell is a fifth generation Iowa farmer from Story County, Iowa. See One Carolina Girl's video of Miskell from last year:
EENR invited Miskell to come by last week and talk about the issues the community was interested in, which included international issues besides the war in Iraq that blogs and the M$M don't pay as much attention to; some would have been curve balls for many candidates. EENR discovered Miskell has been following human rights and other international issues as its bloggers have. That's rare.
More below the fold....(text courtesy of Sarah Lane and also from Kevin Miskell's diary last week)
I am a volunteer with the Fallon campaign (we need more of you guys!!!)
I am also involved with getting more Deaf people involved in politics. I am trying to do outreach to the Deaf community in IA-03 and all over to support Ed Fallon - why?
I made a short video to explain! Hope you all like it.
**hattip to Desmoinesdem for suggesting me to post this here**
I visted the county fundraiser in Ames today. All four candidates were there and spoke. Greenwald spoke first. She looks a bit rough, decent speech but was all about herself and thinks she can take on Latham with her agriculture background. Meyer was next. Professional speaker, but just not likeable. Meyers went next. You could tell he was nervous and forgot his speech. But it wasn't bad. Miskell gave a nice speech and was likeable farmer next door.
Other things I saw. I was sitting near Kurt Meyer's wife when William Meyers' wife came around with nomination papers. Kurt's wife barked at the poor girl and refused to sign saying she was the wife of Meyer. Meyers' wife responded claiming that her husband had signed Kurt's papers, Becky's papers, and Kevin's papers. To be honest, Kurt's wife is a total you know what. I really hope he doesn't make it.
I also noticed Miskell's son spending a lot of time with William Meyers. They seemed very close which seemed odd to me. Ask around for more info on that one.
Kurt Meyer had two paid staffers there. The girl, Emily, didn't smile once and was very unlikeable. the other was a young guy with a high dollar camera who acted above us all. He had banner there at the table but no info.
some ISU professor was helping Greenwald with her papers, she wasn't set up with anything for a table. Miskell had his son collecting for him without any info.
William Meyers' wife took his papers around to everyone. Guys were actually lining up to sign becuase she's a hottie. He had a small table set up with some great art banners. His logo on one must have been 5 foot long. Two small banners with the logo and then had 2 myspace themed banners which said, "Tom Latham is NOT my friend." A lot of people took photos of that sign. Meyers had a table full of literature with issues on and he walked around and gave his cool cards out to everyone in the room. Too bad his speech fell short of expectation because his physical appearance (very good looking and well dressed) and his logo and literature were top notch. I think everyone expected a pro to speak after his appearance.
Best speech had to go to Miskell. Meyer bored everyone. Greenwalds was empty. Meyers fell short, but he plugged the "Average Joe" theme more than the vet stuff which seemed effective to half the crowd. I'll give Miskell the round 1 win on the speech. Mr and Mrs Meyers are the new hot couple on the block. Mr and Mrs Meyer can take the wealthy stuck up bi$#@y award and Greenwald the pipedream award.
(So, Clinton wins. How about that? I think it is the first time in the modern era that all four early races have been won by four different folks. Wow. - promoted by Chris Woods)
Well, the results coming in have been surprising so far, at least on the Democratic side of things. Clinton up with a quarter of the vote in. Was there anyone predicting that?
You can track live results here from CNN.com. Jerome Armstrong's got an interesting discussion going here saying that with Clinton making the contest this close in NH that we've still got a tough race going on to February 5th...and even beyond.
So, what're your thoughts? How fluid are things? What's next?
John Edwards: Stayed strong and on message. Sided with Obama as a candidate for change, and put Clinton on the spot as the status quo candidate. He came off as articulate, clear, and as the viable alternative to a non-confrontational unity politician like Barack Obama.
Bill Richardson: Didn't do anything good, didn't do anything bad. His one big flop was calling Russia the Soviet Union. But he's tired, just like the rest of the candidates. He's not going to be the nominee, but he isn't going to be left out of the race. He's clearly making the case as an experienced vice presidential candidate.
The people of New Hampshire: Compared to the Republican debate, the second half of the Democratic debate was quite engaging on the issues, on the race, and on substance. Clearly, there is a push for new policies and ideas in the Democratic party. We want real leaders who will talk clearly and our Democratic candidates are willing to do that. While looking exhausted when not answering, they were engaged when the camera was on them. New Hampshire has a tough choice ahead of them.
Barack Obama: He didn't shine like he could've as the front-runner, but Gibson made sure he got the first and last word. He seemed more tired and lackluster than he is on the stump, but that seems to have been the case for most of the debates he has been in.
Losers
Hillary Clinton: Her angry moment sure didn't help her (though it is quite clear she has the energy and is quite committed to the race) and Edwards' double-team with Obama against definitely portrayed her as the third wheel of a two-person race. She's falling fast in New Hampshire and needs to dump Mark Penn.
The Republicans: After watching most of their debate, I can't see how American or folks in New Hampshire would want their old grumpy grandpa or their sleazy corporate boss as president. Huckabee's the only one who looked presidential but his policy offerings have largely been substance-less. Bill Clinton had the advantage of being an intellectual and Rhodes Scholar to overcome the fact that he was really only the governor of Arkansas. Huckabee doesn't have that advantage.
Charlie Gibson (And his NH counterpart): Maybe it was just me, but his cynicism towards the Democrats in general seemed to make him look just as grumpy and frumpy as most of the Republicans in the hour and a half before the Democrats. I'm glad they challenged the Democrats but it seemed a bit harsh and a bit more than needed.
Feel free to call me out on these and offer your own thoughts and reactions. We all know I can be wrong from time to time. And if you're curious, Time's Mark Halperin offers his grades of the candidates here.
Update: The liveblog and commentary is in the comments section. Go there, participate.
I'll be offering some of my commentary on tonight's debate here at BH either here on the front-page or in the comments. Feel free to drop in comments whenever you please and share your thoughts.
Right now the Democrats and Republicans are on stage for a huge photo op. Interesting image...
Maybe I've missed something in my absences from blogging over the past few months, but has the Register ever really done a serious news or feature piece on Iowa's bloggers and citizen journalists? I mean, I know we threaten their credibility and their readership by getting scoops, insight, and news out faster sometimes--not to mention that our commentary is sometimes more consistent and better written than their columnists'--but it almost seems like there is an intent to ignore the contributions that bloggers in Iowa have had both before the caucuses and in previous elections or issues. Today, in their features section, they profile one citizen journalist who has been vlogging for PurpleStates.tv (she had to audition to get the gig) and one guy who has been doing it for MTV. Don't get me wrong, their efforts are valuable...but what about the folks who do this on their own time and don't necessarily live off of it?
The folks at Iowa Independent have been doing regular news and political reporting since May, and other bloggers on both sides of the aisle have been part of the debate and policy discussion in Iowa politics for a few years now. Other papers across the state, as well as national papers and news magazines, have highlighted our growth and commented on our contributions.
Simply put, why can't Iowa's paper of record recognize or examine the Iowa online community for what it is and report back to the people of Iowa on it? I don't want the media attention, the scrutiny, the interviews, the publicity; I just think that some of us deserve the recognition for the contributions we make. Two of my former colleagues at Iowa Independent have already talked a bit about this subject (see Chase Martyn's initial post here and read Ben Weyl's abbreviated response here) and I think it is one worth further discussion as we continue to build Iowa's blogosphere.
Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have both decided to leave the presidential race and will be going back to the Senate. I wish them the best of luck. In the extended entry, you can read Dodd's remarks to supporters and you can read the release from Biden's campaign.
On behalf of Iowa Democrats and the Bleeding Heartland community, let me say thank you to both Senators for their remarkable fight and effort they put into the caucuses. Without Biden, we wouldn't be able to have the serious debate about the future of Iraq like we've been able to have. Without Dodd, things like FISA and restoring the Constitution would have been tossed aside. These men have extraordinary experience and are good leaders for the Democratic party.
We Iowans are interesting people. Of all the Senators and former Senators in the race, we picked the one with the least experience in that institution. Maybe it is because of his message of hope, of unity, of change. But we also looked past a combined 50+ years of experience in the Senate. Is that a bad thing? I don't know. I hope not.
However, these two men can now head back to the Senate and keep working hard for our majorities in Congress. And pressing this reckless President for change. Dodd can keep fighting and filibustering. And who knows, maybe we'll see one of these men later on as a vice president.
![[Bleeding Heartland Logo]](http://www.bleedingheartland.com/upload/logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Desmoinesdem has been posting some links from the 
