About a month ago, Ed Fallon’s campaign issued a press release criticizing Leonard Boswell for sending out a mass mailer on environmental issues. Key excerpt:

“Boswell is trying to paint himself as an environmentalist,” Fallon said, “but his voting record says otherwise. And for him to mail campaign literature on the public’s tab is flat out wrong.”

The mailing focuses on Boswell’s vote in December for the Energy Independence and Security Act that raises fuel efficiency standards to 35 mpg by 2020. However, in 2001 when House Democrats tried to raise these same CAFE standards to 27.5 mpg by 2007, Boswell joined Republicans to defeat the proposal (08/01/01). “Boswell’s reversal of position, Fallon said, “came only after he learned I might be running against him.” He said the same was true of Boswell’s support for the Safe Climate Act, which was introduced in March 2007. “It took until December – nine months – for Boswell to decide to support the legislation,” Fallon said.

It’s probably good politics for Fallon to complain about Boswell sending out campaign-style fliers at taxpayer expense, but let’s face it–the franking privilege is one of the advantages of incumbency. It’s not realistic to expect Boswell not to use this advantage during the primary campaign.

I never saw that Boswell mailer on the environment–presumably it got tossed in the recycling bin. However, this week I got a piece from Boswell about economic issues. It has the look and feel of a campaign mailing, but the small print says, “This mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.”

After the jump I have transcribed this week’s mailer for the benefit of readers who are following this race closely but don’t live in the third Congressional district.

As I mentioned on Tuesday, Leonard Boswell convened a town-hall meeting by telephone on Tuesday, but I was not able to participate.

The Des Moines Register reported that Boswell took questions for about an hour during the call. The only specific question the Register mentioned related to Boswell’s vote for the 2005 bankruptcy bill, which most Democrats in Congress opposed:

“I am a survivor of the farm crisis, and saw folks that bankrupted when they really had the ability to pay back,” said Boswell, who owns a cattle farm in southern Iowa. “It seems to me like when we sign our name on the line and promise to pay, that we have a responsibility if we have the ability to pay.”

At the same time, more help and counseling are needed to assist consumers from falling too deeply into debt, Boswell said. He said he worked very hard to not fall into bankruptcy when he faced financial problems with his own farm operation.

The bankruptcy bill vote is one of many Ed Fallon has criticized in his primary challenge of Boswell.

I hope to be able to listen in on one of Boswell’s telephone town-hall meetings, assuming he has more.

Fallon held live town-hall meetings yesterday in Tama, Amana and Des Moines. If anyone attended one, please post a comment or a diary to let us know how it went. Fallon has more town-hall meetings scheduled for next Wednesday, and I’ve put the details after the jump.

While we’re on the subject, I want to address something I’ve heard from a handful of Democrats I know about this primary. A few people have told me that they won’t defend Boswell’s voting record, and they would like to support a primary challenger, just not Ed Fallon. Maybe they don’t like that Fallon supported Ralph Nader in 2000, or maybe they have some other issue with something Fallon did years ago in the state legislature.

Let’s be clear: the choice for Iowa’s third district is Boswell or Fallon, not Boswell or some fantasy liberal who has never made a mistake.

Democrats willing to run against well-funded, entrenched incumbents do not grow on trees. If you want to see a more progressive Democrat representing Iowa’s third district, you should be supporting Fallon now. If he loses the primary, you can be sure that no one will ever challenge Boswell in a primary again.

Whenever Boswell retires, which could be many years from now, there will be a crowded Democratic primary for this seat, and there is no guarantee a progressive will win.

If you like Boswell and on balance think he deserves to be re-elected, that’s understandable. But if you would rather support a different kind of Democrat for this seat, get behind Fallon now. Don’t hide behind the excuse that you’d rather support some other primary challenger some other year.

MyDD user lipris linked to this post from the Albany Project blog, which includes a list of the 24 Democratic-held U.S. House seats being targeted this year by the NRCC.

None of the three House seats held by Iowa Democrats are on the list. Neither Bruce Braley (IA-01) nor Leonard Boswell (IA-03) has a Republican challenger yet. Braley is officially launching his re-election campaign today. Boswell is facing a primary challenge from Ed Fallon.

I think that Dave Loebsack (IA-02) has a Republican challenger, but I can’t find the link to an article about that. I would be shocked if he has any trouble holding his seat. He will have the army of Obama volunteers helping him if the challenge turns out to be serious.

It looks like a very good year for Iowa Democrats. The caucuses in January prompted nearly 60,000 people to register as Democrats, while only about 7,600 Iowans became Republicans to participate in the GOP caucuses. According to Secretary of State Mike Mauro,

as of March 1, there were 701,285 registered Democrats in Iowa. There were 615,576 Iowans registered as Republicans and 761,201 not affiliated with a party.

Meanwhile, at MyDD Jonathan Singer discusses the GOP’s voter registration problem on the national level.

As the primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton moves on, the question of electability will become more and more important. 

This moring at Century of the Common Iowan, I took a look at the 2008 electoral map.  Using these numbers, Obama would be at 259 electoral votes by adding up the states that are strong democratic, likely democratic, and lean democratic. 

Pennsylvania (21 electoral votes): Lean Democratic ↑
Maine (4 electoral votes*): Lean Democratic ↑
Wisconsin (10 electoral votes): Lean Democratic ↓
Michigan (17 electoral votes): Lean Democratic↑
Minnesota (10 electoral votes): Lean Democratic
Oregon (7 electoral votes): LeanDemocratic
New Hampshire (4 electoral votes): Likely Democratic
Washington (11 electoral votes): Likely Democratic

Obama would then need to win 21 more electoral votes to get to 270 and win the election.  Here are the states that are the article considered as toss ups…

Colorado (9 electoral votes): Toss-Up
Virginia (13 electoral votes): Toss-Up ↓
Missouri (11 electoral votes): Toss-Up
Ohio (20 electoral votes): Toss-Up
New Mexico (5 electoral votes): Toss-Up
Iowa (7 electoral votes): Toss-Up

Obama losing Ohio this week has brought some to question if Obama will be able to win Ohio.

By looking at recent poll numbers in these states, Obama would be able to win the nomination without winning Ohio and Florida.

Iowa (7 electoral votes)

Des Moines Register poll on 2/24
Obama 53%
McCain 36%

Survey USA poll on 2/19
Obama 51%
McCain 41%

Rasmussen on 2/21
Obama 44%
McCain 41%

New Mexico (5 electoral votes)

Survey USA poll on 2/19
Obama 55%
McCain 40%

Colorado (9 electoral votes)

Rassmussen on 2/13
Obama 46%
McCain 39%

Virginia (13 electoral votes)

Survey USA poll on 2/19
Obama 51%
McCain 45%

Rasmussen on 2/21
Obama 44%
McCain 49%

Missouri (11 electoral votes)

Survey USA on 2/19
Obama 49%
McCain 43%

Rassmussen on 2/13
Obama 40%
McCain 42%

These poll numbers suggest that Obama would win Iowa (7), Colorado (9), and New Mexico (5).  This would give Obama exactly 270 electoral votes. 

The Iowa Future Fund is running ads that are lying about Chet Culver’s record.  The group has apparently incorporated itself as a 501c4, so it can refuse to disclose its donors.   Basically, they are claiming that their intent is not to influence elections, despite the fact that all they have ever done is try to smear the big lug.

The organization’s spokesperson is David Kochel, who claims he is the only person who will speak for the Future Fund ever.   Give him a call at 515-865-6077 to let him know how you feel about his organization, or email him at david@jdkmpa.com to demand that the group disclose its donors.  Let us know what kind of response you get.

We don’t watch much tv, so I wasn’t aware of the ads that have apparently been running against Governor Culver since last summer. The Des Moines Register reports that the Iowa Future Fund has not disclosed its donors. A former GOP state director, David Kochel, is the only person who has acknowledged involvement with the fund’s ad campaign. The Register notes:

Iowa Future Fund has been running ads sporadically in Iowa since August, all criticizing Culver. The latest round accuses him of vastly increasing spending and criticizes him for signing a bill offering Microsoft tax incentives to locate a center in Iowa.

The group is registered with the Internal Revenue Service under chapter 501(c)(4), which allows it to advocate for or against legislation, but does not require it to disclose its contributors.

The Iowa Democratic Party recently asked the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board to determine whether the Iowa Future Fund’s ads are violating state law. Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Scott Brennan said at a press conference that the ad’s claims are not true, but the Register notes that “Iowa’s campaign law does not require ads be true.”

Brennan also said the fund broke the law by not filing disclosure reports, but it doesn’t sound like Democrats are going to be able to prove that these commercials trigger the disclosure requirements:

Charlie Smithson, Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board executive director, the ad must expressly call for the election or defeat of a candidate in order for the board to have jurisdiction.

If anyone out there knows more about who is funding these ads, please drop me a line or post a comment.

Just got this e-mail from Environment Iowa. There’s a big vote coming up Thursday in the Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee:

Did you know that we here in Iowa spend less state money per capita on the environment than almost any other state in the nation?

We think that’s outrageous, and a bi-partisan committee of legislators, working closely with environmental groups as well as the Farm Bureau, has recommended that Iowa spend an additional $150 million a year to improve water and soil quality, enhance parks and trails, and protect wildlife habitat.

Tomorrow afternoon, Thursday March 6, the Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee will vote on a bill that is the first step toward dedicating those funds. Join us in urging these committees to vote ‘yes’ on our environment.

To send an e-mail to the Senate Natural Resources and Environment Committee, click here:

http://environmentiowa.org/act…

Action is critical now — this legislation must pass both houses in the next two months, or else the process will be delayed for two years.

This bill would put a question on the ballot asking Iowans create a fund specifically for Iowa’s water and soil quality, parks and wildlife. These funds would be protected for environmental purposes only and future legislatures won’t be able to raid them for other purposes as they have in the past.

The new resources would be invested in:

 * Protecting water quality from both urban and agricultural sources of pollution;

 * Keeping the best soil on earth where it belongs – on the earth,not in our streams and lakes where it smothers fish and other aquatic life;

 * Restoring parks, biking and hiking trails at the state, county and local level;

 * Protecting habitat for a diverse array of species such as trout, bobwhite, pheasant, and bobcat.  

So please take a moment to tell members of the Senate committee how important it is to invest in our water, land and wildlife. Follow this link to take action today:

http://environmentiowa.org/act…

For what it’s worth, I would call the members of this committee rather than e-mailing them. There’s no guarantee that anyone on their staff will open e-mail in time for this vote.

It is quite possible that Barack Obama could win the Democratic nomination based on his lead in pledged delegates, even though more voters in primaries and caucuses supported Hillary Clinton.

Texas is the latest state where Obama may win more delegates despite losing the popular vote (Nevada was another example.)

Also, Obama has gotten lots of extra delegates by running up the score in caucus states with comparatively low turnout compared to populous states such as Ohio, where Clinton won the popular vote by a wide margin.

Gordon Fischer writes at his blog, Iowa True Blue:

Matthews grills McAuliffe:  The Founder of the Democratic Party [Thomas Jefferson] said that a victory by a single vote is as sacred as a unanimous vote.  Do you agree?  McAuliffe couldn’t and wouldn’t answer.   Why?  Because he supports the Clintons and their entire strategy is based, indeed must be based, on ignoring the elected, pledged delegates.

My question to Obama supporters is this: do you see any problem with nominating the candidate who won fewer votes in all of the caucuses and primaries?

Gordon ignores the possibility that the pledged delegate leader could be the candidate who has won fewer votes from real, live citizens.

By the way, if we were only counting Democratic voters, Hillary would be even further ahead of Obama. A strong case can be made that Democrats should select our nominee, rather than Republicans and Democrats-for-a-day.

Former state Representative George Eichhorn, who served three terms in the Iowa House before losing his seat in the 2006 election, announced that he will seek the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate this year.

Up to now, Tom Harkin’s only declared opponent was Cedar Rapids businessman Steve Rathje, who had less than $60 in campaign cash at the end of 2007. Harkin started the year with close to $3.5 million cash on hand.

As I wrote here yesterday, Senator Tom Harkin has introduced The Complete Streets Act of 2008, which would

work to promote the design of streets that are safe for all of those using the street- including motorists, bus riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians, including people with disabilities.  Between 1993 and 2003, nearly 52,000 pedestrians and more than 7,400 bicyclists were killed in road accidents; studies show that the designing streets with pedestrians in mind may reduce pedestrian risk by as much as 28 percent.

More information about this issue can be found at the Complete the Streets website.

In related news, I read in the Smart Growth America newsletter that four pilot programs aimed at promoting bicycling and walking for short trips were found to significantly reduce vehicle-miles traveled, and therefore carbon-dioxide emissions, in the communities:

“This report just goes to show that, for many travelers, the automobile is not always the mode of choice, and that safe and convenient options will lead them to use their bicycles or their feet to get around,” says Columbia Mayor Darwin Hindman. Adds Marin County Supervisor Steve Kinsey, “This program, and its legacy, will change the face of transportation in communities across the country. Its contribution, and that of walking and bicycling, to the nation’s fight against global warming will be notable.”

Reducing vehicle-miles traveled is an essential part of any comprehensive strategy to combat global warming. Otherwise gains from more efficient vehicles or better fuel sources could be wiped out as Americans continue to drive more miles per capita.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2009 would cover a projected shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund by taking money away from public transportation projects. Is there any policy this president doesn’t get wrong? We already devote way too little funding to public transit compared to road-building.

We are going to have a real problem getting to 270 electoral votes this November. Obama is still heavily favored to win the nomination, unless some bombshell scandal emerges during the next couple of months.

However, the rout in Ohio yesterday suggests that McCain would be heavily favored in that state against Obama. There are key elements of the Democratic base that are not sold on Obama.

Remind me again how he gets to 270 electoral votes without Florida (where he has virtually no chance against McCain) or Ohio. Kerry states plus Iowa and Missouri would not be enough, would it? I think he would also need Colorado, New Mexico or Virginia.

More worrying, Obama’s weakness in Ohio suggests to me that he may struggle to carry Pennsylvania in the general as well.

Within the last hour I got a robocall from Leonard Boswell informing me about some kind of telephone town-hall meeting tonight.

Was anyone able to listen in on this call? I am curious.

I am pretty sure that the robocall directed me to Boswell’s Congressional website (boswell.house.gov) for more information–not to the campaign website (www.boswellforcongress.com).

Then, about 20 minutes ago I got my first phone call from a field organizer for Boswell. I was frank with him, saying I’ve supported Leonard in the past and like him, but he’s voted against my interests too many times. I’m going for Fallon in the primary and will support the winner of the primary in the general. The field organizer was polite and thanked me for being direct.

Boswell is taking this primary challenge seriously, and that’s good for residents of the third district. Obviously, I hope Fallon wins the primary, but even if he doesn’t, I think the challenge will nudge Boswell toward better serving his constituents.

UPDATE: A franked mailer from Boswell arrived in the mail on Wednesday afternoon. It certainly looks like a campaign piece–I will transcribe it later. The small print makes clear that it was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.

Desperate for an election-year campaign issue, House Minority Leader Chris Rants tried and failed today to pass a resolution that would have made a gay marriage ban eligible for debate this session. No committee in the Democratic-controlled chamber is willing to pass the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

By a 50-46 party-line vote, the House rejected Rants’ resolution, which would have allowed the chamber to debate the ban even after the bill failed to get through the “funnel.”

Iowa Independent has more on the story here.

I am pleasantly surprised that none of the House Democrats defected on this procedural vote. They must all be feeling confident about their re-election prospects. Maybe that’s because nine House Republicans are retiring this year, while only two Democratic-held House seats will be open.

Regarding Rants’ efforts to keep the gay marriage debate alive, I think Des Moines Register reader Jay Radcliffe said it best in this letter to the editor from late January:

Thank goodness for Christopher Rants. As I drive down the highway smelling the stench from the hog lots, watching the filthy water roll under the bridge, worrying if my kids will fall behind as their schools fall apart, wondering if my elderly mother is receiving quality care and planning how to survive if I lose my job in this recession, Rants is leading the charge against gay marriage. Talk about a profile in courage.

Keep up the great work, Christopher!

Tom Harkin is touring the state this Friday through Monday to officially launch his re-election campaign. He has events scheduled in Davenport, Dubuque, Iowa City, Burlington, Ames, Sioux City, Storm Lake, Des Moines, and Council Bluffs.

For details, click here:

http://www.tomharkin.com/events

I was pleased to learn yesterday that Harkin has introduced a “complete streets” bill in the Senate. Here is more information from a press release issued by the Thunderhead Alliance:

HARKIN INTRODUCES BILL TO MAKE ROADS SAFE FOR EVERYONE

To reduce accidents, legislation will create ‘Complete Streets’ to keep motorists, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians safe

Washington, D.C. – Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today introduced The Complete Streets Act of 2008, which would work to promote the design of streets that are safe for all of those using the street- including motorists, bus riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians, including people with disabilities.  Between 1993 and 2003, nearly 52,000 pedestrians and more than 7,400 bicyclists were killed in road accidents; studies show that the designing streets with pedestrians in mind may reduce pedestrian risk by as much as 28 percent.  Harkin was joined in this effort by Senator Tom Carper (D-DE).

“Making our streets bike and pedestrian friendly is a win-win for us all,” said Harkin.  “It not only promotes healthier lifestyles, it lowers the amount of traffic congestion that many people deal with every day.”

A recent study by the Texas Transportation Institute found that providing more travel options, including public transportation, bicycling and walking facilities, is an important element in reducing traffic congestion.  The study reported that congestion was responsible for an annual $78.2 billion loss in fuel during traffic jams in 2005, an increase from $57.6 billion in 2000.

Also, as recently as 30 years ago, up to 70 percent of children were walking or riding bikes to school.  Currently, the number has dropped to only 10 percent.  Parents report that traffic safety is the main reason they do not permit their children to walk or bike to school.  This legislation will make our environment more inviting for physical activity, especially for kids.

Harkin’s proposal has been endorsed by: AARP, America Bikes, America Walks, American Council of the Blind, American Planning Association, American Public Transportation Association, American Society of Landscape Architects, Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, League of America Bicyclists, National Center for Bicycling and Walking, Safe Routes to School National Partnership, Smart Growth America, Surface Transportation Policy Partnership, Thunderhead Alliance, and Rails to Trails Conservancy.

Great leadership by Harkin on an important transportation issue that is rarely covered by the media. If you see him on his announcement tour, please thank him for sponsoring this legislation. “Complete streets” improve the quality of life and are good for the environment and public health.

I heard that the nurse-in organized by the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women was a big success yesterday, with about 20 families represented. A friend who was there e-mailed to say:

Rachel Scott with the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women sort of organized us yesterday and wanted us to know that there’s a meeting of the subcommittee on this particular bill – HF2292 – tomorrow morning [Wednesday] at 9:15.  Here’s what she had to say:

“What I need for tomorrow is to have 3 or 4 women to come, especially those who can speak to breastfeeding/ pumping at work or who worked somewhere where a reasonable accommodation was made that they could describe.   Another great thing would be if anyone knows of a small business owner who would come and speak to how easy this is.”

It really is easy to accommodate a woman who needs to express milk, or nurse a child, occasionally during the work day. If you know anyone who can attend this hearing on Wednesday morning, please spread the word.

Rachel Scott can be reached at rachel.scott AT iowa.gov

Meanwhile, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement had their rally and meeting with the governor scheduled for today. If anyone was there, please put up a diary to let us know how it went.

Wednesday is Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa’s lobby day. Here are the details:

Lobby Day is from 9:30 to 4 on Wednesday March 5.

Those unable to attend the entire event can meet us at the capitol between 12:15 and 3pm (you can find us on the second floor in pink and black “Prevention First” t-shirts).

The day will begin at 9:30 in the Botanical Center with a training on citizen lobbying and a briefing on PPGI’s legislative agenda.  Participants will be given a “Prevention First” t-shirt to wear to the capitol and we will break into groups based on legislative district.  We’ll have lunch and take a bus to the capitol where we will be lobbying for the following legislation:

   1.  Healthy Families Initiative: Creates Iowa’s first state fund for contraception for low-income women ( Iowa is currently 48th in the nation in contraceptive accessibility.  Over half of our counties have no family planning center)

   2. HPV Insurance Coverage:  Requires all insurance companies cover the HPV vaccine

One of our most persuasive arguments in the legislature is that voters support these initiatives.  We want to create a strong presence at the capitol and need as many supporters there as possible.  Group lobbying provides a great first-time experience in citizen lobbying.  The day will conclude with a brief reception in the Botanical Center from 3 to 4pm.

Please RSVP to Susan Alexander at salexander AT ppgi.org or (515) 235-0441 or register online at http://www.ppaction.org/ppiowa…  

What's going to happen tomorrow?

I think Obama will win Vermont and Texas (popular vote and delegate count), while Clinton will win Ohio and Rhode Island. I don't think Clinton will gain serious ground on Obama.

If she doesn't win the popular vote in Ohio and Texas, I do think Clinton should drop out. If she wins the popular vote in those states, I think it's reasonable for her to continue on to Pennsylvania, even though it would be very hard for her to overtake Obama in the delegate count.

The House Environmental Protection Committee on Monday approved a bill that would extend the 5-cent deposit to bottled water, tea, juice and sports drinks.

It’s a step in the right direction, although it would be better to increase the deposit so that redemption centers could receive more than 1 cent for each can and bottle they handle.

Governor Culver’s original bottle bill proposal would have doubled the deposit to 10 cents, giving an extra penny to the redemption centers. However, Culver’s bill also would have returned only 8 cents of the deposit to consumers. The other 2 cents would have gone to fund some environmental programs.

I’m all for increasing environmental funding, but the key to widespread political support for the can and bottle deposit is that it is not a tax–consumers get all of the money back. Converting the deposit into a tax that is not fully refundable would erode public support for this very important recycling program.

I hope the legislature will extend the deposit to a broader range of bottled drinks this year, but in 2009 I hope someone will step up with a bigger bottle bill reform initiative.

For an overview of other bills that hang in the balance this week, read this Des Moines Register piece. Any bill not approved by a legislative committee by this Thursday will be dead for this year’s legislative session.

I didn’t see this in the news, but just got an e-mail from the Iowa Planned Parenthood Action Network:

Thank You Governor Culver!

Dear [desmoinesdem],

Governor Culver recently announced that he will be “turning back” Federal funds that are restricted for “abstinence only” sexual and reproductive health education.

This action is a rejection of “abstinence only” in favor of comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education which includes abstinence.

Comprehensive sex education also includes birth control, sexually transmitted infections and other good sexual health practices that “abstinence only” neglects.  

Governor Culver’s rejection of the funds comes from the fact that “abstinence only” programs DO NOT WORK because they leave out information about what to do once you are sexually active.

Help us congratulate Governor Culver on his bold and strong leadership on returning Federal “abstinence only” funds!

Good for him. Taking the money would have been the politically easy route. Instead, he showed leadership on this issue.

If you want to sign up for Planned Parenthood action alerts, go here:

http://www.ppaction.org/ppiowa…

If you supported John Edwards, you probably are familiar with the Edwards Evening News Roundup at Daily Kos. The team who brought you those updates have created a new EENR Progressive blog, a forum for activists to talk about various issues and strategies for building the progressive movement.

Pioneer111 put up this diary about the new blog at MyDD. Key passage:

EENR is a community blog, and we hope you will be part of that community.  We’ve tried to set standards for discussion that reflect our desire for open communication, the search for truth, and that wonderful lesson we all learned in kindergarten, “Play Nice and Share Your Toys.”  There are lots of toys, too.  There’s a wonderful video wall, lots of diaries already there waiting for your comments, links to a mirror of the JRE campaign website, and much more.  We’ll have Open Threads, and special guest bloggers.  And we’re always open to suggestions!

EENR has a really unique feature.  We have 12 subject sections located on the left hand side.  This gives us twelve front pages and if you write a diary with one of the sections in your tags or use the drop down menu in creating it you can be a front pager in any section except the Home Page.   😉 Please join in creating the community discussions in all progressive areas. It also means that candidate diaries do NOT dominate the discussion.  Progressive issues do.  We hope that more contribute to that point of view.

There are diaries on a wide variety of topics at the EENR blog. I encourage progressives to join the conversation–even if you didn’t support Edwards for president.

Barack Obama apparently wants conservative Republicans to serve in his cabinet, possibly in some of the most important jobs:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t…

Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.

Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain’s closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary. Some regard the outspoken Republican as a possible vice-presidential nominee although that might be regarded as a “stretch”.

I would hope that even the most fanatical Obama supporter could acknowledge what a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad idea it would be for Obama to choose a conservative Republican as VP. Hagel and Lugar have voted to confirm every judge George W. Bush has appointed. Having someone like that a heartbeat away from the presidency is just an invitation to some conservative nutjob to take a shot at Obama.

Furthermore, Obama has been a long-term smoker and could easily get lung cancer or some other kind of cancer. No Republican should be his VP.

I also have real problems with the idea of Hagel or Lugar in an important cabinet job like secretary of state or defense. Basically that reinforces the false right-wing stereotype that Democrats cannot be trusted to handle security and foreign policy issues.

We have plenty of highly capable Democrats who would do a great job as secretary of state or defense.

If Obama needs to prove he’s bipartisan, he should pick some moderate Republican for a low-profile cabinet post. No hacks who’ve voted with Bush 90-plus percent of the time in the Senate, and no Republicans for the top-level cabinet positions.

Chris Bowers has more on this:

http://www.openleft.com/showDi…

I particularly agree with this part:

Obama sends out regular signals that he will govern in a very centrist fashion. Running Harry and Louise ads and appointing Bush Dog Jim Cooper as a spokesperson on health care make that obvious enough. His praise of Reagan and bragging that he is more bipartisan than the DLC also make that clear. He has no problem letting you know that he’s “not one of those people who cynically believes Bush went in only for the oil,” that he isn’t a “anti-military, 70s love-in.” He scolds unknown progressives for thinking that “every mention of God is automatically threatening a theocracy,” and reminded everyone that Social Security faces a crisis. Now, he is sending out signals that will be appoint Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar to incredibly powerful posts such as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense.

Here is the thing: what counter-indications had Obama given that he will govern as a progressive? I honestly can’t think of any[….]

Outside of telecom policy, his policy platforms are pretty much center-left wonkish boilerplate, and his rhetoric is straight down the middle. In short, I just don’t see Obama as a transformative progressive at all.

If I am missing something, I don’t know where to look for it. Chuck Hagel as Sec Def is just the latest indication that Obama is more about placating High Broderism, Tim Russert and the Washington Post editorial board than he is about transformative progressive change. I’ll work hard to help elect him, but I also don’t intend to delude myself about what to expect when he becomes President.