Interesting news from Burlington-based True Majority:

We founded TrueMajority and TrueMajorityAction to offer an easy way for all those people out there who want America to be more just and compassionate to speak out. It really caught on, and turned into one of the largest online groups in America. But now, it’s time to take it to the next level.

As of this month, TrueMajorityAction is merging our operations with USAction, one of the pre-eminent field organizing progressive groups in America.

TrueMajorityAction will continue to watch Congress for our members, and create quick “one-click” opportunities to speak up at critical moments. That’s worked great, our members say they love it, and we’ll work at online organizing as hard as ever. But now, as the online arm of USAction, they’ll also be able to offer ways for those online members to connect with neighbors who share their vision for America and carry that work into the “real world.”

True Majority's presence on the national scene hasn't been felt as much over the last year, but they're still a big internet-based organization with a massive list. Merging with US Action, which has always been a field organization (and a hardcore one, too – I cut my teeth as an old, pre-name change, Citizen Action canvasser in Maryland, and later as an organizer in Oregon… in many ways, they are the gold standard) could make them stronger than the sum of the parts.

( – promoted by odum)

In case you missed the actual debate, you may not know how the Dem candidates all (except Gravel)answered Tim Russert’s question, “Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?”

While the media, and the Republics, candidates, and some netrooters have painted some or all all these responses as “refusing to get all troops out of Iraq”, the reality seems very different to me.

See reality, below.

Excerpts from the transcript of the debate:

OBAMA: If there are still large troop presences in — when I take office, then the first thing I will do is call together the Joint Chiefs of Staff and initiate a phased redeployment. We’ve got to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, but military personnel indicate we can get one brigade to two brigades out per month.

I would immediately begin that process. We would get combat troops out of Iraq. The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect U.S. bases and U.S. civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq.

CLINTON: Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack; it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting.
…
there may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at Al Qaida in Iraq. It may require combat, special operations forces or some other form of that. But the vast majority of our combat troops should be out.

EDWARDS: I will immediately draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat troops out of Iraq until all of our combat troops are, in fact, out of Iraq.
…
I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that (protect the embassy and humanitarian workers), 3,500 to 5,000 troops.
…
I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq.

RICHARDSON: my position in bringing all troops out of Iraq is to end the war.
…
I would bring them out through roads, through Kuwait and through Turkey. It would take persuading Turkey. The issue is light equipment. I would leave some of the light equipment behind.

(My Note: I have read many Richardson supporters’ posts that claim he means keeping troops to protect the embassy, but that embassy soil is US soil so those don’t count.)

DODD: I will get that done.

BIDEN: I would make a commitment to have them all out if there is not a political reconciliation, because they’re just fodder.

KUCINICH: I know that we can get out of there three months after I take office or after the new president takes office if one is determined to do that. And I want to make it clear that the plan includes ending the occupation; closing the bases; bringing the troops home…

Here’s my personal distillation:
Obama – most out, keep some counter-insurgency troops

Edwards – no combat troops, leaving leeway for protective troops

Clinton – most out is a “goal”, keep some combat troops

Richardson – trying to create an issue by saying zero but doesn’t really mean it

Biden – get them out if my plan doesn’t work

Kucinich – solidly pro-peace

Dodds – said what he needed to to get Russert off his back

The media coverage has absolutely trashed the Dem candidates on this issue, and it’s been fueled by well-intentioned anti-war progressives who want to try to get candidates to super-duper promise that they will really end the war. I understand the need for that, but the general perception is evolving that Dems are not even against limiting US involvement in this war, really, and that will cut heavily into our electorate in Nov 08.

Washington Post:
Wanted: Democratic Straight Talk on Iraq
By Eugene Robinson
Friday, September 28, 2007
“Yes, you heard it right: At the Dartmouth College debate Wednesday evening, not one of the three leading Democratic candidates could pledge that all U.S. combat troops would be out of Iraq by the end of his or her first term as president.”

The NY Times:
Candidates Hedge Bets on Iraq Withdrawal
September 26, 2007
By JEFF ZELENY and PATRICK HEALY
“The three leading Democratic presidential candidates refused on Wednesday night to promise that they would withdraw all American troops from Iraq by the end of their first term, saying in a televised debate here that they could not predict the future challenges in Iraq.”

All these candidates look weak, maybe you think they are, but I see at least some candidates who are giving pretty good specifics on fundamentally ending this war. Can we get that message out to voters?

Hey, if the Democratic majority in Vermont can't get its message together, maybe we'll slide by with more help like this from the GOP.

So, if its not yet evident, the reason you don't put a wingnut like Rob Roper (until recently, a regular fixture on Paul Beaudry's creepy “True North” radio show) in charge of something like a political party, is that they let their… enthusiasm… run roughshod over common sense. This brouhaha over Burlington's Intervale, and the attempt to paint Gaye Symington, David Zuckerman and Will Raap as anti-environemental hypocrites, was a very bad idea for the GOP, and although it has a lot of Dems concerned, I have little doubt that it's going to backfire on them.

Background, from the Herald/Argus:

When Burlington's Intervale Center was notified by the state this week that it had violated environmental rules and would have to do better if it is to stay open, the center promised to fix the problem.

The issue might have passed with little notice, but for one thing: House Speaker Gaye Symington, a Democrat, works for the center. Rep. David Zuckerman, a Progressive, farms a 16-acre plot there. And other political heavyweights on the left have been involved in greater or lesser ways in the development and operation of the center, established as an environmental and land protection showpiece.

Enter the GOP, stage right.

The environmental problems at the Intervale show that Symington, Zuckerman and other politicians on the left are not up to the task of protecting the environment, said Republican Chairman Rob Roper.

First of all, it's only going to help Symington, whose star hit rock bottom among many in the left last session. The inevitable bounce back has already quietly begun for her, and being thrust into the trenches with progressive darlings Zuckerman and Raap will only jumpstart that bounceback further. That's just action-reaction.

But who was this attack trying to convince? Sure, there'll be the charges of hypocritical-limousine-liberal… from all the people who make that charge every day, anyway. To everyone else? The issue is a serious matter but it's being dealt with in a professional manner. No jumping up and down refusing to address the problem, or claiming that environmental regulations are all communist, or threats to appeal or sue the state.

And this is already being seen as a cheap, mean-spirited shot to try and score points. That's a minus for the GOP. So we have nobody who's paying attention won over, or run off. His suggestion that the party of Rob Roper, Wendy Wilton and Paul Beaudry is better suited for environmental stewardship that the likes of Raap, Symington and Zuckerman is a pretty hysterical punchline – no doubt even to most Republicans.

To the people who only pay marginal attention, it gets this story out beyond Chittenden County:

over two decades the Intervale has taken 354 acres of largely abandoned land, made it productive and ensured it will remain farm land, Symington said.

“It was full of dumped cars and tires. Now there are productive farms and at-risk teens growing food that is served in the school cafeterias,” she said. “I am proud to be part of that work.”

Roper said he really likes the Intervale too. His family goes there to visit and buy vegetables, he said.

Gotta love that.

But what about the people who aren't paying attention?

All they're hearing is “farm – runoff – Intervale – Zuckerman – Gardner's Supply – Symington – waste.” Fuzzy, and a bit inconsistent, but positive. It almost allows Symington to share the spotlight of the poor, beset-upon Vermont farmer.

Thanks for turning on that light, Rob.

I'd bet good money that the only way this becomes a public relations problems for Symington and Zuckerman is if they somehow make it one.

…uh, okay – that part worries me.

And it should worry us all, as Speaker Symington already has this little gem in the press reports (emphasis added):

“Rob Roper's job is partly to embarrass me,” Symington said.

That's right. The 'm' word – me. Symington is already retreating into making it about herself, which is the complete opposite of the right way to handle this, and on so many levels, it'd take a dozen blog posts to fully cover all of them.

Nor do I have much faith in the Progs to handle this. I find myself thinking back to when Anthony Pollina was found to have violated the letter of the campaign finance law he had helped craft. For those of you who don't remember, he didn't go “oops, sorry, my bad” and play the we're-all-only-human route of humility. No, he went ballistic and sued everybody (including in essentially dropping a SLAPP suit on the ED of the Dems at the time by name  – not through his title, just him, as a private citizen), then tried to get the law tossed before being scolded out of court by Judge Sessions. Sure, that was a long time ago, but Zuckerman's quantum leap earlier this week to a charge of “irresponsible journalism” at the word that Stewart Ledbetter was simply doing his job as a reporter shows that its still incredibly easy to press many Progs' buttons.

Who knows, maybe Roper is more clever than I think he is, and figures with a little nudging, Symington and Zuckerman will fly off and make themselves look bad for the media and the public.

If that is his call, let's all hope it's a bad one.