iCasualties is reporting the 3000th American casualty from Iraq. The latest casaualty is among 11 not yet officially confirmed by the Pentagon, so expect to hear this reported tomorrow, rather than today.

Happy New Year, indeed – and get ready for the escalation (“surge”). I think we all know at some level that, one way or the other, Bush will leave Congressional Democrats with no choice but to face their two ultimate Constitutional options; cutting off the federal purse strings and/or impeachment.

Okay, so it may not officially start until this upcoming week, but in many ways that matter, the ’07 Legislative session has been underway for a while now. It doesn’t take a genius to see that in recent legislative cycles, the more a Party holds control of the public debate, the more they control the actual agenda. In ’05 after a lot of good work by the Dems on health care, Governor Douglas stepped into the limelight and took complete control of the discussion before lawmakers had even left the Statehouse to return to their districts. That control was certainly on display in the final product, as well as in the accolades from the likes of the AARP.

The Republicans (naturally) are the only Party who seems to be tackling this in an organized, head-on way. Despite the fact that both the Ds and the Rs are in transition – moving into a new legislature as well as new Party leadership – you wouldn’t guess it on the R’s part from the recent papers. Message testing and propogating is very much in play, seemingly already pushing the GOP framing of property taxes and a new twist on civil confinement into the media forefront. Take a look at this AP piece on the upcoming agenda which leads on property tax:

(House Minority Leader Steve) Adams and his colleagues called for creation of a special House committee dedicated to property tax reform, much as Symington created for health care when she was elected speaker two years ago.

But she has rejected that approach, arguing that a much broader debate has to take place about why education costs what it does as well as about how it’s funded.

Not only is the issue front and center on the GOP’s terms, but Symington is already being placed on the defensive.

This isn’t a good early sign for House Democrats. Adams (unlike his predecessor) will likely be interested in getting something passed as opposed to simply playing partisan contrarian, which in the big picture bodes well for the chances of actual legislation emerging from the House. Nevertheless, that doesn’t alter the fact that – once again – House Dems are starting in the hole against a GOP noise machine that is clearly working in unison with the Governor (of course, Adams may also find himself in an awkward position if, as reported by PoliticsVT, recently defeated Senator Wendy Wilton successfully takes the reins of the GOP, as she would likely be interested in a slash-and-burn combative approach).

The Dems seem to have no such counter effort. What they do have is Peter Shumlin who was first out of the gate beating the drums on his legislative priority the day after his re-ascendence to Senate leadership. The issues related to global warming are just starting to become less of an abstraction to the average Vermonter, and depending on how he plays them (and how much support he gets from other Dems). he could find resonance. From conservation to hydro to wind, the topic could be expansive. There could even be an opportunity to enter the taxation debate if he broaches the matter of a potential offsetting revenue capture from a BTU or carbon tax. The topic is obviously near and dear to his base, and his vocal championing of the issue will help keep his base in line in the event of disappointments on other issues (such as health care). Translating it to an “everyman” appeal will have to be finessed. The issue does create opportunities for stark lines of distinction between the Democrats and the Republicans going into the ’08 elections, though, so expect to see Shumlin stay on it relentlessly.

If this early jockeying for position is any indication, Shumlin will be likely to frequently eclipse Symington as the voice of the Democrats in Montpelier and be a greater force in driving the agenda. Even in today’s Allen-Porter piece, which (for a change) puts the D’s front-and-center on the agenda list, Symington again seems on the defensive – this time from the aggressive rhetoric of Shumlin rather than the GOP:

Symington doesn’t mind (Shumlin’s) emphasis on the topic (climate change) early in the session. But she has cautioned that the General Assembly has concrete issues to grapple with, particularly as the state’s education tab approaches $1.2 billion and the taxpayers’ ability to sustain it grows more tenuous.

“What I would ask us to think about is what are we doing now to make this state all it can be for our children and grandchildren,” Symington said last month to her fellow 92 Democrats in a report from The Associated Press. “That is the question that really needs to guide us.”

That corrective, almost scolding tone that so often accompanies the Speaker’s rhetoric does her no favors, as it always comes off as defensive – and being on the defensive is always seen as a sign of weakness. Hopefully Communications Pro Bill Lofy will be working with her on this sort of thing.

Whether the new Statehouse dynamic will push Symington, repotedly (by Dwinell) considering a gubernatorial run, closer to such a move is an interesting question. In either event, she would be well served to quickly find ways to be less reactive to the seemingly more media-savvy GOP and Shumlin and get her own agenda out front proactively. To do that, Symington will have to break from form as a political technician and find a little of that vision-thing. Besides health care, the only issue last session that seemed to evoke an impassioned response from the Speaker was the raising of the gas tax to close a budget hole. Hardly inspiring stuff (although it will get you headlines – just the wrong kind…)

Once again I see the Republican-controlled media going overboard with the “mourning of Gerald Ford.”
Excuse me for my impudent attitude, but the man was 93 years old.  Why are we mourning his death?  He lived a good long life.  Did we expect him to live forever?

As far as the quality of his leadership, it was a mixed bag in my opinion.  He had some good qualities.  He seemed to be an honest, decent man who wanted to do the right things.  But he did one gigantic thing which was wrong … he pardoned Richard Nixon.  It wasn’t that I thought Nixon shouldn’t be pardoned … which was my opinion at the time … but that the WAY he did it prevented any honest investigation of WHAT Nixon had done.

If we had that investigation back in the 1970’s we might not have a criminal in the White House today.  Gerald Ford prevented the TRUTH from being revealed to the American people.  That was his big WRONG action.

Consequently, we are now in a state of mind where many people feel impeachment procedings against another Republican President who has asserted to be “above the law” by his actions and words is unnecessary, resulting in a continuing threat to our liberty and Constitutional democracy.

This is the dangerous and wrong-headed legacy of President Gerald Ford: “Investigation should be stopped.”

Democratic Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi has done a similar wrong by proclaiming “There will be no impeachment.”  Excuse me?  The purpose of impeachment is to “hear the evidence” in the open investigation and debate to be held in the House of Representatives.  That’s EXACTLY what this nation needs to UNIFY itself …. around the truth.  If we don’t hear it, we can’t unify around it.  Investigation is necessary.

Why do our leaders so often fail to get the point that leadership comes FROM the truth, not from a person or a party?

Whatever good things Gerald Ford did as President will forever be overshadowed by the single gigantic evil act he did … preventing honest investigation of the crimes of Richard Nixon … with his pardon.

Pardon should not be granted BEFORE a conviction is reached, only afterwards.  If President Ford had waited until after the conviction of Richard Nixon I would have another opinion.  But so as it is he has failed the nation and the Constitution and shall forever live in disgrace in my mind.

There is no substitute for the truth.  In order to know it we must seek it.  That means investigation.

Are the Democrats paying attention?  I hope so.

Steve Moyer
http://stevemoyer.us

John Edwards proved Friday that he remains a popular politician in the state of New Hampshire.

More than 1,000 people showed up yesterday to see the former South Carolina Senator at a “Town Hall” meeting at the Little Harbor School in Portsmouth. So many people showed up that hundreds were turned away.

Not a bad Granite State turn-out considering that Edwards just declared his intention to make a second run for the White House on Thursday. Not bad at all.

The New Hampshire Union Leader has the traditional print media story on the Edwards visit here:http://www.unionlead…

The Edwards campaign has a robust and aggressive new media strategy (thank you Dr. Dean), which is why Edwards met privately with twelve local Bloggers to chat about his candidacy.

Smart.

I was invited to participate in the discussion.

Very smart.

Two things I noticed about the other Bloggers invited to the Edwards chat – 1. they were capable, 2. they were friendly.

I helped crack the ice a bit by telling the Massachusetts folks, belowboston.com, that my nickname for Governor Mitt Romney was “Governor Big Love”. They responded by telling me that Mitt Romney’s real first name isn’t Mitt, it’s Willard.

Daily Kos rocks stars this bunch.

One Blogger I met was active in Ned Lamont’s upset victory over Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, another worked with Deval Patrick’s campaign in Massachusetts during the 06′ cycle.

It’s new media politics baby. It’s here to stay. Rock on early primary states.

John Edwards knows this (so does McCain on the other side of the aisle), which is why Edwards was so agreeable to meeting with us for 20 minutes to answer every single last one of our questions.

The Edwards campaign even streamed the Q&A (“Pod Tech” and “Rocket Boom”) for their website and YouTube.

Which makes good sense. Senator Edwards is a gifted talker. He looks good on film. The Internet is a content delivery system limited only by a campaign’s imagination. It is bargain basement cheap.

And, most importantly for our dear Republic, Senator Edwards seems to have a depth of knowledge about what afflicts our country and what he intends to do about it – “Tomorrow begins today”.

One of the Bloggers asked what he (Edwards) would do to end poverty in America. Edwards answered that he would raise the minimum wage, make it easier for unions to organize, modify housing policies and increase access to higher education.

He stated that the growing wealth gap in this country is a disgrace.

I agree with that. By anyone’s standard, what we pay our so called “top CEOs” is disgusting and dangerous to the common good. I don’t care how many times you’ve read Adam Smith.

Speaking of his goal to get the public excited about public service Edwards said, “I want Americans to feel patriotic about something other than the war.”

God bless you. I agree.

Too bad for us that at the beginning of 2007 all the oxygen in the public square is being consumed by the War in Iraq. Not even John Edward’s baby smooth demeanor can escape that fact.

Tomorrow, it seems, still begins after we fix what Bush started yesterday.

To confess, my own question to Edwards was on the Iraq War. So was my follow-up question. I couldn’t resist. I’m merely a simple columnist. I opine on the reality of the present in the reality of the present.

What the Democratic Party – the MAJORITY PARTY of the U.S. Congress – is going to do about Iraq is the political question of the moment.

The Democrats have nothing resembling a unified front on what to do. They’ve got bad, worse and “blown up” options for Iraq. And, their ponies are already heading into the 08′ ring.

Yikes.

To be fair, what the Republican Party has for political options with the Iraq War is almost as bad. But hey, we’re the wimpy minority party and when that crazy bastard George Bush “surges”(which I actually support) we still have that crazy bastard George Bush.

Get it?

But the Democrats asked for majority control in the last elections and the American public gave it to them. All that was asked in return was that Democrats “take the War in Iraq in a new direction.”

Not that easy.

Three options. They are all terrible.

1.You can stay the course.

2.You can go along with Bush and “surge”.

3. You pull the troops out starting tomorrow, which means that you vote against funding the war.

Doing anything other than 2 or 3 is 1. (And this is your war too Mr. Binden – Mr. CHAIRMAN – it’s not just the President’s anymore)

I wrote about the Democrats Iraq problem several weeks ago here:http://greenmountain…

and here:http://greenmountain…

So, I can’t say I was surprised to see the following story in my local paper on Friday.
It seems that soon-to-be Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, Patrick Leahy, is exploring ways to cut off funding for the President’s expected troop surge proposal and the Democratic leadership, and their candidates for President, aren’t exactly pumped: http://www.reformer….

Wait, troop surge? But isn’t just stopping the surge simply maintaining the status quo? That’s not a new direction! Oh well, I guess Senator Pat had to start somewhere.

Which brings me all the way back to John Edwards and the fact that on Friday I was sitting less than 2 feet from him when it was my turn to ask him a question.

No problem. Enquiring minds want to know. I even have the audio tapes to preserve my moment in the sun.

Here is a imperfect transcript of my question to Edwards:

Clacker: “Senator Edwards, soon-to-be Chairman Leahy is currently exploring ways to cut off funding for the Iraq War. Do you support Senator Leahy’s efforts?

Edwards: (2 minutes of verbal dodging and weaving) “No, I’m running for President, how can I agree with that? All 3 options on the Iraq War are terrible and if I choose any one of the three definitively, I’m screwed. If I don’t act definitively I’m screwed. What a mess.”

Clacker’s follow-up: Senator Edwards, do you think that disagreement on the Iraq War within your Party will be a problem in 08′?

Edwards: (Another minute of verbal dodging and weaving) “No.”

Edwards and I didn’t disagree on much over the course of our 20 minutes together, but we disagree on his answer to that question.

The Iraq War question is going to tear the Democratic Party apart in 2008. It will take smarts and political skill to avoid the wreckage.

Edwards has both. In bunches.

Stay tuned.