Cross-posted from blog.johnedwards.com

Tonight, Senator John Edwards addressed the nation in a televised response to President Bush’s speech on Iraq.  In his address, which aired on MSNBC after President Bush’s remarks, Edwards reminded the American people that Congress can – and must – force an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. Edwards’ comments marked the first time any presidential candidate has used a national televised address to speak to the American people about President Bush’s refusal to change course in Iraq.

Watch it here:

In the address Edwards said that the only way to force the Iraqis to take responsibility and negotiate a political solution is to begin withdrawing troops – immediately.  Edwards criticized President Bush for refusing to change “the only strategy he has ever had – more time, more troops and more war.”

Edwards concluded his remarks by reminding the American people that Congress must answer to them. “Tell Congress you know the truth – they have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it,” said Edwards. “When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice: a firm timeline for withdrawal.  No timeline, no funding. No excuses.”

The transcript from the address, after the fold.

Senatorial failure and state wacko conservative Bill Salier (His current position as chair of Tom Tancredo's Iowa campaign neatly sums him up, really) is circulating a petition expressing his desire to see judge Robert Hanson impeached for declaring Iowa's gay marriage ban unconstitutional.  Because, as we all know, people like Bill Salier will be unable to help themselves from getting gay marriages if they become legal, and pretty soon that slippery slope will lead to him having three or four simultaneous gay marriages with his dogs.

Here is Mike Gronstal's response:

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal laughed when he heard about the effort.  

 And later:

Gronstal said Salier’s impeachment demand was not an honest attempt to oust Hanson. “Let’s be blunt: The likelihood of that happening is zero, and he knows it, and you know it.”

 House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy doesn't mince words either:

“This is a very emotional issue, but we are not interested in politicizing the judicial branch to help the failing presidential campaign of Tom Tancredo,” the Des Moines Democrat said in a statement. 

This is the perfect way to talk about this issue – go right back at the crybabies.  Major props to our elected leaders today.

The Los Angeles Times released a new Iowa poll on Tuesday:

Clinton 28

Edwards 23

Obama 19

Richardson 10 

The results have been discussed at MyDD and Open Left:

http://www.mydd.com/…

http://www.openleft….

Jonathan Singer made the key observation at MyDD:

I do just want to add that the “likely” voter screen for the LA Times and Bloomberg is a bit loose. Doing some back of the napkin math, the likely voter model used here would include more than 870,000 Democratic caucus participants — which is a bit more than the 122,000 or so that participated in the last Democratic caucus. While there may be more excitement this time around than there was in 2004, there isn't that much more excitement. So what does that mean? A lot of the folks the Times and Bloomberg are deeming “likely” voters or caucus goers are in fact unlikely to participate come January. Most in fact. As such, while these numbers might be good gauges of the general sentiments of these states, I'm not certain how good of gauges they are of the sentiments of those who are actually going to play a large role in selecting the next Democratic nominee.

The problem with almost every Iowa poll I've seen lately is that the universe of likely voters sampled suggests a ridiculous number of caucus-goers.

If turnout exceeds 150,000 at the Iowa caucuses on the Democratic side, I'll be surprised. If it exceeds 200,000, I'll be shocked.

My sense is that a lot of Hillary supporters and leaners have never caucused before and won't caucus this year either–especially if we have to go the week after New Year's. 

Well that was fast.  Not two weeks after she signed a pledge stating that she wouldn't campaign in states scheduling invalid early primaries, Clinton is already on her way to breaking her pledge:

So, do five funders and “a discussion about her senior agenda at the Century Village West in Boca Raton” a constitute a “public appearance” that is campaigning?

You be the decider.

Mark Daley, her spokesman in Iowa, said “she is doing 5 fundraisers and a public meeting about seniors issues. This doesn’t violate the pledge as Florida is not in violation of the DNC rules at this time.”  He initially said Sept 30 is the deadline for them to set their date but said later he wasn’t sure of the deadline.

“Sen Clinton is very much committed to Iowa’s special role and that is why she signed the pledge,” he said.

Ah.  But the pledge she signed says nothing about deadlines or Sept. 30.

There isn't any question about it.  This clearly violates the letter and spirit of the pledge she signed. 

I have been invited to write one front-page post each week at MyDD in support of John Edwards. It appears on Tuesdays as part of their “candidate blogger” series (two Clinton supporters post on Mondays, two Edwards supporters on Tuesdays, two Obama supporters on Wednesdays, and a Dodd, Biden and Richardson supporter on Thursdays).

I keep forgetting to cross-post these at Bleeding Heartland. I've put today's installment after the jump. It's about how Edwards is keeping New Orleans on our national media's radar screen, and why that is important.

Just got this from the Public Campaign Action Fund. If you haven't supported them in the past, please consider doing so. Public Campaign and its action fund do a lot of great work.

Dear [desmoinesdem],

 

Thanks to your fast action, Insight Communications, the cable company that last week refused to air our new ad about Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), has relented: they will air the ad this week.

We beat McConnell and his donors when we forced Insight Communications to back down. Now we need to take this opportunity to claim the right to run this ad on the air. We’re $14,500 short of our goal – if 145 people gave an average gift of $100 we’ll make it. If you can give more, great. Every dollar you contribute affirms the freedom of speech we fought for last week. Please make a donation to help us reach our goal today.

Help us keep this ad on the air. Consider making a donation today!

Insight, whose executives have donated thousands of dollars to McConnell and whose head lobbyist and CEO are both McConnell allies, tried to keep our ad, which talks about McConnell's ties to big money special interests, off the air.  We know censorship — and blatant political favor-trading  — when we see it and we immediately launched our petition effort to get Insight to air the ad.  On Friday evening we got the news: Insight backed down.

Now we need to make sure Kentuckians see this ad. Help us keep it on the air by making a donation today!

While we celebrate this victory for our ad, and for the light it will shed on McConnell's habit of acting on behalf of his campaign patrons instead of his constituents, we also celebrate a larger victory for our freedom of speech.

We have already seen our elections dominated by those with the most money who can buy the biggest megaphone, and as a result we have seen the priorities of our elected officials skew towards the narrow interests of the few and the wealthy.  But when you, and your fellow activists, signed the petition Friday and called for an end to Insight's censorious tactics to further control debate you took an important step in changing those priorities.

The ad will run in Kentucky through the week, as often as our funds will allow.  Thank you for all you've done.

David Donnelly
National Campaigns Director

P.P.S. The ad, and Insight's reaction got quite a bit of news coverage, read up here for more, and check out these YouTube clips of television coverage.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had a bumper sticker contest and just selected a winner from about 10,000 entries.

To see what slogan won, and order a free bumper sticker, go here:

http://www.dscc.org/…

Thanks to the Senate 2008 guru for alerting me to this in his excellent weekly roundup, which you can find here:

http://www.mydd.com/…

Or just check the Senate 2008 guru blog here:

http://senate2008gur…

Atrios runs an occasional series of “Simple answers to simple questions” at his blog Eschaton.

Opening the opinion section of the Des Moines Register on Sunday, I found a piece by Richard Doak under the headline Still resisting deadlines, does Bush even want to end war?

No.

David Donnelly of the Public Campaign Action Fund sent out this very disturbing e-mail today:

Dear [desmoinesdem],

Cable giant Insight Communications pulled our new ad on Mitch McConnell at the 11th hour last night.  Insight's executives have donated $17,000 to McConnell. Now they are helping him even more by engaging in political censorship to keep this ad, which criticizes McConnell for his special interest politics, off the air.

Sign this petition to tell Insight Communications that you won't stand for political censorship.

All the other broadcast networks, including NBC, ABC, and CBS and another cable system are running the ad after reviewing its content for accuracy. Why won't Insight air it? 

And what role did Insight lobbyist Keith Hall or Insight CEO Mike Willner, both McConnell donors and allies and big players in the national cable industry, play in making this decision to censor the ad?

We need answers to these questions and we need your help to hold cable giant Insight accountable for political censorship, which is a blatant move to help out their favorite big money politician, Mitch McConnell. Their decision to pull the ad at the last minute, and give us no notice or opportunity to respond to their concerns, is highly irregular and reeks of a potent witch's brew of big money donors, lobbyists with connections, unaccountable big media, and a powerful Senator.

Insight Communications is censoring political speech — sign this petition and tell them to take their big money muzzles off our airwaves.

High-powered lobbyists and moneyed special interests already dominate campaigns and political debate in this country — when they try and censor ads that draw attention to this disparity they must be held to account. If big money politicians and big media win, we all lose. Only in the narrowest sense is this is a fight about whether our ad runs. At its core, it's a fight about freedom of speech.

Sign the petition today and get this ad back on the air.

Thanks for your work,
David Donnelly
National Campaigns Director

P.S. Now more than ever we need to keep this ad running in Kentucky.  Please donate today to keep it on the air.

Here is David's diary at Daily Kos on the same subject:

http://www.dailykos….

If you haven't joined Public Campaign yet, you should:

http://www.publicamp…

I forgot to set the VCR. From the looks of this thread at MyDD, I didn't miss much:

http://www.mydd.com/…

interesting tidbit here from Todd Beeton, who was watching the post-debate tv coverage:

The participants in Frank Luntz's post-debate focus group of 29 Republicans were unanimous in their disappointment in the candidates. A solid majority was pleasantly surprised by McCain and was most disappointed in Rudy Giuliani. They also called Romney a waffler.

Something about how Chet Culver describes gay marriage always struck me as funny, but I could never quite put my finger on it.  I knew there was some dog whistle politics thing about it, and today with this whole new gay marriage flap I finally realized what it was.  Check out this quote:

“I have said personally that I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I’ve been consistent on that. At the same time, I think it’s important we let the judicial process work itself out here,” [Culver] said.

Do you notice it?  The guy never makes any judgement at all.  He believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, not necessarily that it should be.  And, I think we can all agree, he is correct for the state of Iowa.  Marriage is indeed only between a man and a woman.  And, until we let the judicial process work itself out, it will certainly remain between a man and a woman.  Culver doesn’t make a judgment one way or the other, because you can’t go from an “is” to an “ought.”  And while I’d certainly prefer that he come out and say that he thinks gay marriage is fine, he is coming about as close to the line as you can go without a real potential for negative repercussions.

Also, The Big Lug would be a pretty good name for a gay cover band.

While bloggers were busy overreacting to Bill Richardson's jokes, the governor stated some obvious and important truths about our transportation policy during a campaign stop in Creston on Tuesday.

He makes a lot of good points in the write-up in today's Des Moines Register, so I encourage you to click through and read the whole thing:

The United States’ transportation system is “fixated on highways” and should include more emphasis on energy-efficient modes of travel with planning to ensure preservation of open spaces, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said here today.

Richardson told about 80 people at Creston’s historic railroad depot that he’s been struck by the massive traffic jams and congestion he’s encountered while visiting as many as three states per day while seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

The problem, he said, has been caused by poor planning by policy makers who have suffered from an inability to look forward to provide alternatives to driving automobiles.

“What I am seeing right now is all across the country … individuals in cities asking for a more active federal role in not just funding bills to create new highways, but also light rail transportation, commuter rail, and open spaces,” said Richardson, whose campaign talk was periodically interrupted by the rumble of freight trains and a Chicago-bound Amtrak passenger train that rolled past the restored depot.

It's long past time for us to shift some of our transportation dollars away from new road construction.

For more information about transit-oriented development, click here or  click here.

For great analysis of high-speed rail's potential in the U.S. and other aspects of transportation policy, check out some of the diaries posted by BruceMcF at Daily Kos.

We saw how lazy Fred Thompson was when he motored around the state fair in a golf cart, but with his new ad we now have an explanation:

No healthy person's head bobbles around that much.  Let's just say that it won't be too surprising when he flip flops on stem cell research.

[Update: Today we learned that Rep. Jim Marshall of Georgia, like Rep. Boswell a Blue Dog Democrat, has expressed support for HR 811 even without the unfunded mandate amendment. The bill will not get to the floor until Friday, so there is time to contact Rep. Boswell, and be sure to tell him about Rep. Marshall!]

HR 811, the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, is getting a vote this week. Passage of the bill is essential to a verifiable 2008 election. We need voter-verified paper records and random mandatory audits by 2008!

There is a potential amendment to the bill that needs to be defeated. An “unfunded mandate” amendment could be introduced that would delay the 2008 deadline for paper records and audits.  This amendment is unnecessary. HR 811 now allows states and counties to purchase less expensive paper-trail printers for the 2008 election. And last spring Iowa passed funding for upgrades that meet the 2008 requirements of the bill (see line 10-21). The bill is probably going to the floor on Thursday so today is the day to act.

**Call Congressman Boswell TODAY at 202-225-3806 to tell him to oppose the unfunded mandate amendment to HR 811!**

More on the flip.

Iowa True Blue is back and better than ever.  Especially this post.  Just letting you know in case you, like me, had abandoned it when it wasn't updated for months.

Not really, but it is entertaining watching Kos from DailyKos become further and further unhinged.  The latest?  Going apopleptic over a Bill Richardson joke.  Honestly, I don't know if his heart is going to make it through this election cycle. 

I'm trying to come up with a breakdown of the size of unions in Iowa, along with their endorsement history.  Here is what I have so far, but it might not be 100% accurate.  Unions report their size using different metrics to fluff up their apparent importance.  I've divided their reports into four categories – Membership, Employees Represented, Active and Retired Employees, and Families.  Because of the Right to Work (for less) law in Iowa, the membership is always going to be the smallest of these numbers, and probably the most important.  (Active and retired members would be helpful too, but no one reports that.)

Of course, it is not all that unlikely that some of the membership numbers are misrepresented, as well.  Still, this is a pretty good rough approximation of the most important labor unions in Iowa, at least for the top 5 or so, their sizes, and their track records.

If you can help me fill in the blanks, please email me at simonrstevenson@gmail.com.

(Inspired by this post from Open Left on the national breakdown.) 

A while back I put up a post about the different attitude toward disagreement on political blogs and non-political blogs. I noted that

One surprising lesson I've learned is that people take offense much more easily on parenting blogs than at places like Daily Kos and MyDD.

Well, in the past few days I have gotten myself banned at a blog for the first time ever. It was Jess's Christian parenting/simple living blog Making Home, where I had been commenting for a few months. Jess is one of those bloggers who moderates comments not to screen out spam but to screen out views she considers “personal attacks” or intended to lead her readers astray.

I had tangled with the blogger before, resulting in her censoring my comments, but the last straw for her was the thread below this post, in which she made all kinds of ridiculous assertions about evil society vs. perfect Christian womanhood. She did post my first comment, under which she commented that in the south they have a saying: if you throw a rock over a fence, it's the hit dog that hollers.

Meaning that if I objected to her absurd stereotypes about women who don't share her values, my disagreement is proof that she must be right and must have struck a nerve.

I tried to respond to her (and to her husband, who fancies himself a real Biblical scholar) several more times, but never made it through her editorial screen again.

Elsewhere on the thread, I noticed that Jess, her husband and several of her readers tag-teamed to attack “Christine,” who had previously identified herself on the blog as a terminally ill theology student who had felt Jesus Christ's healing power in her own life. Christine's version of Christian faith was insufficiently judgmental and narrow-minded for Jess. I felt bad for her, but when I tried to post a comment supporting her, of course Jess did not let it through.

I don't post this in any effort to drum up a blogswarm, because there's no point–Jess would never let any of those comments through either. 

But I did find it amusing that after years of participating in all kinds of arguments at Daily Kos and MyDD, handing out and receiving fewer than a dozen troll ratings during all of that time, I managed to get banned from one of these non-political blogs in a matter of months. It's amazing how thin-skinned some of these people are.

Freeganism.

Do you know what it is? The definition and link to the blog where I learned about it are after the jump. 

Have you learned any new words lately?

Iowa,  Nevada,  New Hampshire and  South  Carolina Call on
Democratic Presidential Candidates to Sign Campaign  Pledge

Des  Moines, Las Vegas, Concord, Columbia  – The Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina Democratic Parties joined  together today in releasing a pledge that calls on the Presidential candidates  to preserve the traditional role of retail politics, socioeconomic and ethnic  diversity early in the nominating process.

The pledge, a one-page document that the early states  are asking the Presidential candidates to sign, respects the work done by the  DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee in 2006. The Committee created a pre-window  allowing for early contests in only Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. This calendar was approved by the full DNC over a  year ago.

As Chairs of the four pre-window Democratic State  parties, we believe recent actions by a few states have sought to create  upheaval in the approved calendar and dismantle the thoughtful and deliberate  work previously agreed upon. As a party, we owe it to the people working  diligently to elect the next Democratic President of the  United  States  to conduct a sensible and timely nominating process, one that has already been  established.

“I believe the pledge we asked the Presidential  candidates to sign sends a strong message from  Iowa and our early-state companions that the pre-window  must be respected,” said Scott Brennan, Iowa Democratic Party State Chair. “We  need to bring order, predictability and common sense to the presidential  nominating calendar and focus on electing a President who will deal with the  ongoing war in Iraq, healthcare and renewable energy, instead of  focusing on selecting dates to hold our nominating  contests.”

Attached to this release is the letter sent to all  the Democratic Presidential candidates along with the pledge the  Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina Democratic Parties are asking the  candidates to sign.