(From today’s Blog posting at www.greenmountainpolitics1.blogspot.com I am hoping that sometime soon Odum is kind enough to link to me)

2006 was a great year for the Democrats. The Party, united in its hatred of all things Bush, rode the President and his handling of the Iraq War to a majority in both Chambers of Congress.

But, as good as the 06′ campaign talking points were for the Democrats – “A new direction in Iraq!” and “I will hold the President accountable!” – 06’s talking points are having a tough time carrying over to the 07′ majority.

Much to the dismay of voters who voted in the Anti-War Establishment freshman class of the 110th Congress.

Hey, it’s a lot tougher to govern than it is to throw bombs on the campaign trail.

And, what does a freshman majority do when it starts to get tough in the governing arena? They wait two full hours after being sworn in to start backing off their campaign promises.

Two hours.

Two hours after Steny Hoyer officially took over as House Majority Leader he sat down with NPR’s Rober Siegal to chat about the War in Iraq (among a few other things).

The audio of the interview can be found here: http://www.npr.org/t…

Warning: The Following Contains Language That May Be Unsuitable For Anyone Who Thought That This Congress Will Be Any Different Than The Last When It Comes To Dealing With The Iraq War

Siegel: What message about Iraq does the new Congress take from the election?

Hoyer (dodging): The complexity of Iraq and the fact that the President is the Commander-In-Chief and in charge of the administration of the armed forces and could veto any legislation are all significant factors in dealing with the Iraq issue.

Clacker: Whoa, Whoa, Whoa Steny! “Complexity”? “Significant factors”? But you promised us a new way forward. It all sounded so simple two months ago!

Next question:

Siegel: Should we expect the House to use its power of the purse over the War in Iraq?

Hoyer (really dodging): Clearly you are going to see the House, in the near term, exercise its oversight. Murtha and Skelton are going to hold hearings. The Iraq War is the worst execution of foreign policy in my lifetime.

Clacker: No shit? In your lifetime? Tell us something we don’t know Steny.

And these hearings the House Democrats keep talking about? We already had them. They were called the Iraq Study Group – a well-funded, bi-partisan group of foreign policy Wise Men who did there level best to show the American public that there are no good options in Iraq.

The only thing that Skelton and Murtha are going to dig up is that Bush is a moron and that lots of people are guilty of war profiteering.

Again, no shit.

Steny, you’re in the majority now. Embarrass the President. Prove that Haliburton is disgusting. Fine. But the war is still raging and you made promises to the American public.

The truth is if you are against putting more troops in and you are against cutting off funding for the entire war effort than you are in favor of staying the course.

It’s the truth even if you are in the majority party.

Steny better get some new talking points.

Coming in off the wires…

http://www.bizjourna…

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.

This post might also be tittled, “Why Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should not be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008.”

Hillary Clinton is accomplished and smart. The fact that she is female, I believe, is an asset to her political ambitions.

She can raise money.

As First Lady, she survived (even thrived?) the level of scrutiny that candidates for President endure from a international press corps. In 08′, only McCain and Edwards have had their personal closets rooted through so thoroughly.

If Hillary were to run she would have the greatest Democratic strategist of her generation, Bill Clinton, as her campaign manager. No one is better than Bubba (but a few are equal).

It doesn’t matter.

If Hillary 08′ really makes a run for it, and I do not think she does (exploratory campaigns do not count), she would take the Northeast and West Coast states.

That does not take her to the 270 electoral votes that she needs to be President.

To crack 270 she has to pick up electoral votes in the Great Lakes-Mississippi River region, the near West and Southwest, Pennsylvania and/or Florida.

She won’t.

Hillary, love her or hate her, has 100% name ID nationwide. In all 50 states her favorable/unfavorable are set in stone.

There is nothing (and I mean NOTHING) that you, me, the guy walking his dog down the street will see/read/hear about Hillary that will make them change their mind about her. That goes for the people that love her as well as the people who despise her.

It does not matter who the Republican nominee is (sorry John McCain). Hillary doesn’t get to 270. The electoral math just doesn’t add up in the battleground states.

The Democratic Party would be foolish to let her run because if she runs, she will get the nomination and is guaranteed to lose the general.

She would even beat Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, which is a shame because I really like Barack Obama.

Not that it matters because Brack Obama isn’t going to be President in 08′.

Not yet.

It’s not that he’s black. This country is most likely ready for a black President.

Its not that he’s not smart enough. Obama is really smart. I mean, really, really smart. And telegenic and articulate, which are both key ingredients of the modern presidency.

It’s because Obama doesn’t really stand for anything. Not yet. He’s too young.

We love Obama because he is fresh and so unlike 99% of our other politicians. We like him because he is honest (stupid land deals in Illinois aside). We like him because he seems to be the most like us.

Which is the problem. Obama-mania is really all about us (its always about us, we’re Americans). We project our hopes and dreams upon him because, by standing for nothing in particular, Obama stands for everything. Like us.

Standing for everything is very dangerous under the white hot lights of a Presidential campaign. Standing for everything is not a winning campaign strategy.

And, as my very good friend Mark Halperin said, “If you animate forces who do not feel a strong enough bond with you, the mob that had your back can become the mob at your door.”

Just ask Howard Dean.

Which leaves us with John Edwards. And, to be honest, he’s not a bad choice for the Democrats in 08′.

In fact, he is a pretty cagey choice. If the Democrats would only wake up and smell the coffee.

Edwards is very smart, as smart as Hillary and Obama.

Edwards can raise money. Maybe not with the ease of Hillary and Obama, but he will raise enough to be competitive.

America already knows about his skeletons and Edwards knows that we know. He survived 04”s election scrutiny with his reputation relatively intact. This is a huge advantage.

Edwards is able to get to 270 electoral votes. This automatically makes him better than Hillary.

Edwards is already laying campaign groundwork in the key states. He is picking up staff, volunteers and endorsements so much so that he feels comfortable announcing his candidacy next week – well before Hillary and Obama.

But, what I like most about Edwards is his campaign platform – “The Two Americas”.

Very cagey. Very kitchen-table oriented.

When Edwards talks about the gulf between the haves and the have nots, he makes people believe that he is going to do something about it.

Edwards’ campaign is going to resonate.

Let’s hope that the Democratic Party is smart enough to pay attention.

If you care deeply about re-deploying our troops to end the War in Iraq and you do not know who Rob Portman is, you are not paying enough attention.

Rob Portman is the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget and is responsible for keeping the Executive Branch’s books.

Yesterday Portman released the official White House estimate of what the War in Iraq will cost in FY 2007. According to OMB, the War in Iraq will cost American taxpayers $110 billion dollars next year. Or, a little more than $2 billion a week.

$2 billion a week does not seem to buy you a whole lot of democracy these days, as anyone reading today’s paper will tell you.

As people know, I was against the War from the beginning. However, for a variety of reasons I now favor putting more troops into Iraq to try and stabilize it. That conversation is not the purpose of this post.

This purpose of this post is to “suggest” to the Anti-War Establishment (a.k.a. the Congressional Class of 2006) a plan that will, I believe, help them side step the political train wreck currently barreling towards them.

Why do this? Sour grapes?

Hardly.

First, its Christmas.

Second, If, and this is a BIG if, the Anti-War Establishment actually does what I suggest then that outcome will be better for America’s future than will the outcome that will (probably) occur if America puts more troops into Iraq.

Therefore, and assuming someone with some authority actually reads what I’ve written; I’m suggesting all this for the good of my country.

Also, I like letting my opinions be known. Why else would I keep a Blog?

The political problem facing the Anti-War Establishment is as follows –

You won the 06′ election after offering the voters “a new direction in Iraq”. You will start work in January. The New York Times will write a glowing “First 100 Hours” editorial. Everything will be great.

And then the wheels come off. In a hurry.

In January, The President will announce that he is putting in twenty to thirty thousand more troops into Iraq. He will also announce that the current military is not large enough to fight the War on Terror and he is therefore going to increase the overall size of the military.

I’m calling it Bush’s “Double Fuck You” to the 2006 voters. Bush will respond to your outrage by taking a nap.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, your leaders, will announce that they are “reluctantly” going along with the President’s plan.

Behind closed doors they will lecture you on “The Presidential Election in 08′”, the need to be perceived as “strong on national security” and will repeatedly use the expression “the ends justify our means”. You will want to scream.

To keep you on board they will beg and they will plead. And when they are done with that they will threaten.

They will tell you that if you submit a bill cutting off funding for the War In Iraq (which is the only way troops are coming home) your ass is grass and Pelosi is the (very nicely coiffed) lawn mower.

Remember, Pelosi didn’t become the first female Speaker of the House because she smells nice and has really, really cute grandkids.

You will come to realize that many of you aren’t going to be around after the 08′ election if you go along with your leadership and “cave” to the White House on Iraq. Allowing more troops to go to Iraq is not the new direction the voters were thinking about when they elected you.

To add a sense of urgency to this political problem, your freshly hired communications director, who hasn’t even officially started yet, is already telling you about letters to the editor popping up in the local newspapers questioning when you are going to “bring our boys home like you promised”.

It’s a jam alright. But, in Washington, every jam is a potential political opportunity – if you can stand the squeeze it takes to get out.

To get out of this pickle you first have to defy your own leadership and put forward a bill cutting off funding for the War in Iraq. You will not survive re-election in 08′ if you do not. It will be the hardest thing you have ever done in your professional career.

Official Washington will go absolutely bananas the moment you drop that bill in the House and Senate hopper. Hold on tight.

Every mainstream Democrat running for President will beat on the Anti-War Establishment like a drum. “Well Mr. Leher, while I agree with trying to end the War in Iraq as quickly as possible, I just can’t see cutting off funding for our troops.”

Every Republican running for President will gleefully skewer you. “That’s right Mr. O’Reilly, I think they hate our country. And, while I can’t prove it, I heard his mother is a whore.”

It’s always darkest right before it’s pitch black. And, just when you think that it can’t get any worse, it will. You will be cut-off by your own leadership.

Quietly, behind the scenes, Grandma Pelosi will kneecap you. It will hurt.

Hey, no one claimed taming the Military Industrial Complex was going to be easy. Taking them on means that you are (probably) soft of national security and (probably) don’t care about our troops.

And you’re just a silly little peacenik don’t forget.

But, just when the boys at Lockheed think they have “got you, smashed you and made an example of you” you fire your next two shots.

You may even scream, “Right back at you baby!” as you pull the (legislative) trigger.

This is where Rob Portman becomes your best friend because, since you voted against funding the war, you have (in theory) $110 billion dollars that has not yet been spent to work with.

And I’m going to tell you (this is MY Blog after all) how to spend that money to not only save your peacenik hides, but also maximize your political capitol and REALLY move this country forward –

The $110 billion should be used to fund two significant pieces of legislation.

The first bill would provide full funding for every single program that the Department of Veterans Affairs needs/wants/thinks they might want/isn’t sure they want but it couldn’t hurt to have/knows they don’t need or want but it would be cool, I guess, to have it just in case/and everything else that might be left.

“Mr. Leher, contrary to what others have been saying on your program, I love our troops. I love them so much I’m bringing them home and I’m taking care of them when they get here.”

Overnight the Anti-War Establishment becomes the political darling of the pro-military crowd. Politics makes strange bedfellows. You have successfully neutralized the “anti-troop” argument the other side is made. Cheney probably has a stroke. Imagine that.

But that’s only the first $10 billion or so. You still have $100 billion to play with.

The next bill you should propose with Portman’s billions is legislation creating a “NASA type program to move America and the world off of fossils fuels as an energy source”.

Everyone ran on this idea in 06′. Now you have the funding to actually start doing it.

The Feds only spent $3 billion on alternative energy research last year. How much more could they do with another $97 billion?

And, after telling the Military Industrial Complex to take a flying leap, telling the oil companies to do the same will be a walk in the park (and many of you will actually enjoy it).

To maximize your position (good policy makes great politics) use language like: “While ending our dependence on fossil fuels is good for our economy and our environment, we are most immediately concerned with ending our dependence on unstable foreign regimes. We never want to have to send our troops to places like Iraq again.”

Take that crazy Arabs! The Anti-War Establishment has just become the new authority on national security policy. Imagine that.

That’s all there is to it. Sometimes it really is that easy. If you have leaders that can lead.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I don’t think the Anti-War Establishment has the moxie to actually go through with this. I think you all cave to Grandma Pelosi and then get whipped in 08′ (which is why I’m sticking with the more troops in Iraq strategy).

However, if the Congressional Class of 2006 proves me wrong…

Well, not only will you have proved the great Monday Morning Clacker wrong, but you will have ended up keeping your campaign promise and served you country with honor.

I’d think about voting for that.

I like you guys (and gals). Most of you are hard working, decent and fair reporters. And those of you that are not, well, you print outrageous things that make me laugh and so I consider us even.

The good, the bad and the ugly of the 2006 election is behind us. There were winners. There were losers. And there were casualties who are just now trying to get back into the game. God bless all of them.

I think that we can all agree that the Iraq War was the deciding topic of the Vermont U.S. House Race. The candidate that won the election, Peter Welch, promised to take America in a “new direction in Iraq” and “hold President Bush accountable”.

Not surprisingly, you and your brethren seemed to like writing about the Iraq War. No question was too small and no candidate answer too complete to remove the topic from your queue.

My personal favorite were questions that dealt in hypothetical hypotheticals. Such as: “Candidate X, if you knew what you know today and if you were a Member of Congress when the vote to authorize the President to go to war was taken, how would you have voted?”

No doubt valuable questions from the valued Fourth Estate.

My purpose with this tongue-in-cheek open letter is not to pick a fight with you. You buy your ink by the barrel, have teams of corporate lawyers just waiting to pounce and I have more than enough skeletons in my closet that I would like to see stay there thank you very much.

My purpose of this letter is to ask a simple question of you. Three days ago it became public that President Bush is planning on sending between twenty and thirty thousand more American troops into Iraq and I want to know what does our Vermont delegation think about this?

What does the anti-war candidate Peter Welch, a man who just today had two large news articles and one large editorial discussing the freshman’s take on the DC housing market, have to say about this?

Twenty to thirty thousand more troops? Not only is this a radical development in the Iraq War as a whole, but is this the “new direction” that Peter promised the voters?

We won’t know until you ask him and write about it.

Look, its hard for me to. Its hard for me to believe that one of our Senators is Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. One of our Senators was labeled by USA Today as “one of the most important members of the Senate”. And our freshman Congressman is on the Rules Committee, which is as inside-the-beltway as you can get.

All three are “shot callers”. Our delegation has the power to raise a big stink over the current troop increase the President is calling for if they so choose.

Help our delegation stay honest. You don’t have to go back to the hypothetical hypotheticals. But less comment on the real estate market and more comment on how our elected officials are keeping their campaign promises would be appreciated.

Many thanks and merry Christmas!

Was just “tipped” that Randy Brock, Vermont’s current (until the recount against Tom Salmon is official) State Auditor, is being looked at to head BISCHA.

I don’t know Brock personally but he has a sterling reputation as a hardworking and able public servant. I think we would all be glad to see him stay in public service if he were to lose to Salmon.

Speaking of Salmon, I like Salmon. I’ve liked him ever since I saw him standing by himself on a Burlington street corner waving a “Salmon for Auditor” sign as the 5pm September traffic rolled by. The guy wanted to win. Bad. Now it looks like he has.

Good for him.

As the Iraq Study Group suggested he do, President Bush is getting ready to send twenty thousand or more American troops into Iraq.

The New York Times has the story here: http://www.nytimes.c…

I think that sending more troops into Iraq is our last (and only) real option. My thoughts on this can be found here: http://greenmountain…

This development represents a serious political problem for Vermont’s newly elected Congressman Peter Welch. Welch ran for Congress on the “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” platform, promised voters he would “hold President Bush accountable” and would create a timetable for troop withdrawal.

Of course I could be wrong. Congressman Welch might be flying high without a care in the world. But here is why I don’t think that I am.

An interesting statistic from the 2006 House race between Martha Rainville and Peter Welch that no one has talked much about is that polling shows that when Rainville lost on election day her “favorables” were HIGHER than Welch’s and her “negatives” were LOWER than Welch’s.

On election day more people liked Martha Rainville than liked Peter Welch and more people disliked Peter Welch than disliked Martha Rainville.

However, in 2006 it just didn’t matter. Rainville still lost.

She lost because Peter’s “I’m mad as hell” message deeply resonated with a state that was, well, mad as hell about the President and the war. Nothing else mattered in the race.

Carolyn Dwyer’s talked about the Welch/Rainville race with Phil Baruth in last weekend’s Vermont Guardian. Carolyn is a savvy operator who knows her business and the state of Vermont. I will concede that she is correct in many (but not all) of her critiques of Martha’s campaign.

However, if she is being honest, she will admit (both teams were looking at essentially the same polling data) that on election day 2006 the less popular candidate won. And since she is so savvy and honest, she knows why this polling is significant. And she understands that Congressman Welch is fast approaching a series of decisions that will greatly influence his chances for re-election in 2008.

The great irony of the 2006 mid-terms is that this country – sick of war, sick of the President and sick of Donald Rumsfeld – voted to “throw the bums out” and give control of Congress back to the Democrats so we can “move Iraq in a new direction”. The voters, for all that hard work, are going to get “twenty thousand or more troops into Iraq”.

If it wasn’t so sad I would be laughing my ass off.

Which brings us back to Welch (and the Democratic Congress in general). If I am a betting man, I am betting that when Vermonters held their noses and voted for Welch’s “new direction in Iraq” over a candidate they actually liked the voters DID NOT think that they were voting for sending twenty thousand or more American troops into Baghdad.

Unfortunately, for Peter, that’s just what the headlines are reading.

It’s an open secret. President Bush does not give a Texas hoot about Welch, Nancy Pelosi, Republicans, people who worked for his father or anybody else. Bush is on a mission from God, and by God he is going to finish what he started in Iraq.

President Bush isn’t going to pull troops out of Iraq. The only way American troops are coming out of Iraq is if the Democratic Congress cuts off funding for the war.

Let me repeat that again so that everyone reading this is clear – The only way American troops are coming home from Iraq is if the Democrats cut off funding for the war. The Democrats have this power.

So, what’s the big deal? Democrats were elected to “change the course in Iraq”. Why do just that?

Because rage is easy and leadership is always harder than you think. Always.

Me, I’m easy and opinionated. I’m betting that the Democrats don’t have the guts to cut off funding. I’m betting that they are too worried that they will be labeled “soft on national security” going into the 2008 Presidential race. I’m betting that they’re betting voters will have forgotten their 06′ rage by 08′. I’m betting Pelosi really begins to like the view from the Speaker’s office. I’m betting that all the Democrat talk about “changing the course in Iraq” was just that, talk.

I’m betting.

Who should be more upset about this? A moderate Republican who believed fiercely that Martha Rainville was far superior to Peter Welch? Or an anti-war/anti-Bush voter who fiercely wanted to believe that Welch was the real deal?

“I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” is a tough sell when Rumsfeld is gone, the Democrats control Congress and you sit on the Rules Committee, which is the most powerful, inside baseball committee in the House.

The letters to the editor have already started. This is going to be interesting.