Edwards Not Afraid to Say What’s Unpopular

Noneed4thneed liveblogged John Edwards’s Marshalltown campaign stop today, and he relays a particularly interesting tidbit (emphasis added):

The first question asks if he would require oil companies to invest their large profits in building refineries.

Edwards says one long term solution is to cap carbon emissions (receives applause). He would auction off these caps, which would raise billions of dollars and then invest in renewables and build the infrastructure. He says Americans will need to conserve and uses the line Americans need to be patriotic about something other than war. He says we need to use coal sequestration technology and not build anymore coal plants until this technology is available. This was surprising to hear since there is a $1 billion coal-fired powered plant proposed to be built in Marshalltown.

It sounds like Edwards knew of the proposed plant before he said what he said. So why did he say it?

I don’t know, but one possibility is that he is trying to draw more attention to Barack Obama’s apparent quasi-flip-flop on coal power. Watch Common Iowan for more.

4 comments June 15th, 2007

Jerry Falwell’s Legacy and Rudy Giuliani

Cross posted at Iowa Independent

Jerry Falwell died two days ago. Will the Christian Right soon follow? That is certainly one of the questions being debated amidst the 2008 presidential contest. The front-runner for the GOP nomination, Rudy Giuliani, is pro-choice. But he has come under fire; recently for these views and his lead is shrinking nationwide and in Iowa.

Will the Christian Right try to stop Giuliani from winning the nomination? Could they if they tried? In this sense, perhaps the real legacy of Jerry Falwell won’t be known until the GOP has its nominee.

The cover story of the New Republic’s current issue is a lengthy (and intriguing) tribute to the idea that Giuliani can win the GOP nomination. Nestled within, however, is this paragraph:

Then, of course, there is the religious right. Though their power is on the wane, Christian conservatives are not going to allow Giuliani to have the nomination without a bitter fight… Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, put it this way: “If he wins, he’ll do so without social conservatives.” Then he added that a Republican presidential candidate can “no more win without conservative voters than a Democrat can without overwhelming support from blacks.”

Earlier today, James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family, and one of the leaders of today’s Christian conservative movement announced he would not support Giuliani if he were the Republican nominee:

Speaking as a private citizen and not on behalf of any organization or party, I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision. If given a Hobson’s – Dobson’s? – choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran – or if worse comes to worst – not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life.

On the other hand, Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, urged social conservatives to give Giuliani a chance. According to the Hotline, Reed told viewers of the Christian Broadcasting Network that Giuliani “can still potentially win over pro-family voters” if he focuses on issues where they agree. Giuliani had campaigned for Reed last May when Reed was running in Georgia’s lieutenant governor primary; Reed went on to lose the election, but has maintained an affinity for Giuliani, apparently talking him up in January at the National Review Institute.

Here in Iowa, Giuliani has the support of former Congressman and failed gubernatorial candidate Jim Nussle, who was conservative on social issues while in Congress. However, Nussle’s running mate, the more conservative Bob Vanderplaats, in addition to the very conservative Danny Carroll, has endorsed former Arkansas governor and pastor Mike Huckabee. Iowa Republicans–especially the grassroots–are well known conservatives. Two polls taken in 2000 showed that about 60 percent of likely GOP caucusers thought abortion should be illegal, according to the Des Moines Register. The Register reported in the same article that Giuliani hasn’t decided yet whether to participate in the Ames Straw Poll, a crucial test of Republican support in Iowa.

Whether Giuliani will win the Iowa caucuses or the nomination remains to be seen. But what is clear is that a Giuliani victory would be a crushing blow, perhaps a fitting epitaph, for the movement that Jerry Falwell helped create.

11 comments May 17th, 2007

Liveblogging ObaMarshalltown

I had intended to liveblog this event but got stuck in an overflow room with no option of standing in the back. I’m not sure how many updates I’ll be posting as this event starts in a few minutes…

…that situation has been remedied.   Read on for liveblogging.  Sorry for typos, etc., but this is all being typed on a Blackberry pseudo-keyboard.

State rep Mark Smith is on now talking about the successes Dems have had in Iowa and about history. He compares Obama to Abraham Lincoln.  Then he makes sure to note that he hasn’t endorsed anyone  yet and that it’s too early for him to make an endorsement.

Obama is on now. He thanks Mark Smith and volunteers who helped with the event. He says Iowa and Illinois are a lot alike, except Illinois has Chicago.

…He’s going over his bio and tieing that in to the purpose of politics…

Now he’s on to the issues. Goes down list of problems we face; gets applause at the end when he says he was against the war from the beginning. Casts himself as Washington outsider and gets more applause. It sounds like he hasn’t quite memorized his stump speech yet, because it has been a little choppy.

Says we can use ethanol just like Brazil. Says using incentives can make capitalism earth-friendly.

Mentions his senate bill on Iraq withdrawal and gets applause again. Says diplomacy is the answer and alludes to Marshall plan.

He is finishing his speech by talking about the importance of us getting involved and finally mentions briefly that he had a lot of small donors during the last quarter

Now questions…

First questionis on universal health care. Obama talks about preventative health care as part of the solution. He talks about obesity as an example of the problem, but he sounded a little critical of fat people - oops.

This answer is taking too long considering everyone already knows his position as it has been defined. .

Next question is from a peace activist on Israel and Palestine. Obama starts tip toeing…

Religious conflict between shia and sunni predates Israel, he says, dodging the original question.

Obama does believe that Israel-Palestine is serving to perpetuate problems in the reason.

He calls for two-state solution. Palestinians must recognize Israel’s right to exist and stop terrorism. US must be a part of negotiations. My pro-Israel friend just said Obamas answer won his vote.

Sandy shaver from UAW/Maytag asks about outsourcing. It turns out Barack Obama is against it.

Solution one is stop giving tax benefits for outsourcing.

Solution two is improving infrastructure like broadband.

Solution three is spending a lot of money on green technology (on the scale of the Manhattan project, he says).

Finally Obama says he supports both free trade and fair trade. My Econ major friends roll their eyes a but but it sounds good to me

That was all his answer to the outsourcing question.

Next question from a teacher is whether he will consult teachers on his education plans. He says his sister is a teacher (and yes, he will).

Everyone has to work to improve education: parents, students, community, etc.

Obama says he does support some of NCLB’s goals, including higher standards for students. But he thinks it needs to be more sensitive to individual students, and he thinks the funding situation needs reform.

Also he wants to increase teacher pay tied to some accountability measures.

Cute kid asks about year-round school. Obama says he might like the idea of changing the school calendar to avoid one long summer break.

Next question comes from an Iowan with a mental disability on employment possibilities. Obama praises tom harkin forhis work on the issue and promises to get one of his staff to help Him get in touch withthe right people.

Next question is ,what has happened to our democratic party? Dems are too friendly to big business and too soft on immigration.

Obama says you can’t be pro-worker without also being pro-employer. Question-asker isn’t satisfied and asks more specifically about immigration.

Obama supports more secure border and better I’d verification. But he also thinks that those people who are here can’t - and shouldn’t - be sent home.

Last question comes from a student about how expensive college is. He says student loan systemshould be reformed so banks are no longer making money on kids.

Obama is also in favor of expanding national service programs and offering to pay for education for kids who go into certain important professions (like teaching).

He closes by waving a supporter cardsnd asking is to get involved. More thoughts later

2 comments April 6th, 2007

John Edwards Strikes First In Iowa

John Edwards recently sent out the first mailing of the 2008 primary season to 70,000 Iowans. The mailing includes a detailed description of his health care plan and a DVD (found here) that describes the plan. The video is quite effective though it’s unclear how many of the 70,000 people who received it will actually watch it. However, it is a clear sign of how serious Edwards takes Iowa and also of the emphasis that he is placing on health care. It also gives away his campaign strategy.

Edwards’ focus on health care makes Iraq a secondary issue for him. Although he voted for the Iraq War in 2002, he has since made a very public mea culpa and has been forgiven by anti-war left (as Ed Fallon’s endorsement of Edwards shows). This enables him to dodge the debate over Iraq, which will be the most divisive part of the campaign. From this, one can surmise the Edwards’ road map to the nomination. The second tier candidates (Biden, Dodd and Richardson) are running on experience, specifically that they have the experience to help avoid further American embarrassment in the Middle East and one of Barack Obama’s major selling points was that he was against the Iraq War from the beginning. And we all know how Hillary Clinton voted on Iraq. They will all tear each other apart while Edwards can avoid the entire mess. Edwards then sails through the early primary states as the field narrows. Once it becomes a two-man race, he takes on the wounded survivor of the Hillary-Barack fight over Iraq on February 5th. He defeats his badly bruised opponent and becomes the nominee.

With l’affaire Geffen and Artur Davis’s comments in Selma, Clinton and Obama seem to be doing all they can make this scenario possible. However, with Edwards tipping his hand, both Clinton and Obama still have time to change gears before Edwards successfully takes advantage of the media obsession with them so that he can become the nominee.

2 comments March 5th, 2007

Possible Endorsement For Richardson?

Bill Richardson is coming to Iowa in early March and one of the events on his schedule is a house party at the Indianola residence of State Representative Mark Davitt. Needless to say, when a state legislator has a house party for a Presidential candidate, it seems quite likely that the state legislator is supporting that candidate. And if Davitt is endorsing Richardson, it offers Richardson a major boost in Warren County.

Davitt is a well-liked State Representative who defeated another popular incumbent, former State Senator Doug Shull, to win re-election to his third term in 2006. Davitt’s family also has strong local roots. His father also served as a State Representative from Warren County and his wife is the publisher of the local paper. Davitt is the leading Democrat in the 14th most important county in the state in the Iowa Caucuses.

Mark Davitt is comparatively unknown next to another politician who endorsed a candidate in the caucuses this week, Tom Daschle, who endorsed Barack Obama. But it’s doubtful whether the mind of any caucusgoer will be swayed by Tom Daschle’s endorsement. However, while Mark Davitt is nowhere near as well known nationally or even statewide as Daschle, his opinion is a lot more likely to sway caucus goers, particularly those in Warren County. Iowa Caucuses are not won by the endorsements of major national politicians, they are won by the support of well-respected community leaders like Mark Davitt. If Davitt is backing Richardson, his endorsement is worth more than that of 10 Tom Daschles.

2 comments February 25th, 2007

Where’s Hillary?

Last month, Hillary Clinton made a widely publicized visit to Iowa to kick off her Presidential campaign. However, since then, she has not been in Iowa at all and has no announced plans to visit again anytime in the future. She still has only assembled a barebones Iowa staff (though there is speculation she will inherit former Vilsack staffers). It seems very peculiar for such a major candidate to have such a minimal presence in Iowa compared to her competitors. Although the Clinton campaign is clearly focused on fundraising right now, it still seems to unwise to lay low in Iowa when John Edwards and Barack Obama have been visiting the state weekly.

Add comment February 25th, 2007

Barack Obama Acquires Some Questionable Supporters

While the tempest in a teapot has been raging about the comments that Obama backer David Geffen made about Hillary Clinton, it’s worth noting that Obama, who was in Iowa last night, has acquired some questionable supporters. Obama has freely accepted the support of someone with known links to transvestite prostitutes, of a person who’s publicly made anti-Semitic remarks and, most appallingly, of Ben Stiller.

It’s highly doubtful that Hillary Clinton will attack Obama for his links with the man responsible Meet The Fockers (although that film was more appalling than any comment David Geffen has made or ever could make). But the basic point is who cares? It is one thing for Hillary Clinton to attack Obama on his position on Iraq, his lack of anything remotely resembling a healthcare plan or on any other substantive issue. Those attacks produce real debate that actually matters. But attacking Obama because someone who wrote him a check said something nasty to Maureen Dowd is meaningless. It doesn’t change anyone’s mind, it doesn’t effect the life of a single person and it doesn’t produce any meaningful debate.

Presidential primaries, like any other election, are fundamentally about negativity. Presidential primaries specifically arose to keep political bosses from sweeping party conflicts under the carpet to broker political deals. They are about replacing compromise with conflict. Primaries are about candidates competing to see whose vision of their party is the most compelling and about testing each candidate to see who can best hold up under the enormous strain and pressure of a general election. However, not all negative attacks are created equal. They can point out clear flaws in candidate’s programs like when George H.W. Bush described Ronald Reagan’s plan for tax cuts for the rich as “voodoo economics” and lead to important debate. But when they’re just pointless attacks for the sake of scoring some easy points in the press like Hillary Clinton’s on David Geffen, it contributes nothing to the public arena and degrades the entire political process.

2 comments February 22nd, 2007

Peculiar Coverage of Obama

Last month, when Hillary Clinton came to Des Moines and had an audience of 1500-3000 people for her campaign kickoff, she attracted tons of media attention, including a softball interview with David Yepsen. When Obama attracted a crowd of nearly 5,000 in Ames, twice as many as Hillary, he got less attention from the national media (although it was day two of his campaign). In addition, Yepsen wrote a curious piece on Obama. The headline “Can a candidate be too candid?” made it seem like Obama was the second coming of Bulworth. So what sacred cows was Barack Obama slaying? David Yepsen was shocked because Obama didn’t want to immediately cut military spending when we have 200,000 troops overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then again, if Obama was in favor of cutting military spending, Yepsen would probably label him as almost as unelectable as Dennis Kucinich.

So what’s happening? Part of it is that Obama has increased expectations for drawing crowds. When you can draw 17,000 people to attend a speech on a Saturday morning when it’s nine degrees outside, the bar has been raised. Especially when it involves a relatively minor effort to build a crowd (compared to Hillary Clinton’s effort for her Des Moines event two weeks ago.) The rest is just about the day’s news cycle. Unfortunately for him and for America, Barack Obama is in direct competition for attention with Anna Nicole Smith. However, there’s only one explanation for Yepsen’s weird coverage of Obama. It’s a realization that is an important part of the civil and considerate discourse that Drew Miller is famous for.

2 comments February 12th, 2007

Correction on Obama Endorsement

Last night, we blogged on the Hotline’s report that Dave Loebsack may have endorsed Barack Obama at the Obama rally in Cedar Rapids last night. It seems though that he was just echoing a common practice of Congressman Boswell and appearing as a courtesy at the event, not endorsing. However, Iowa’s Attorney General, Tom Miller, and its State Treasurer, Mike Fitzgerald, did endorse Obama at the Senator’s rally in Ames today. This leaves the Obama campaign about 1,157 Iowans behind Tom Vilsack and closing. Incidentally, Selden Spencer spoke at the Ames event without endorsing Obama. This goes to show that you don’t have to be elected to Congress to speak at a Presidential candidate’s event without an endorsement, you just have to lose by less than 20 points.

Add comment February 11th, 2007

John Edwards’s Health Care Plan

In the midst of the stupidity over bloggers and the stupidity over his house, it’s worth noting that John Edwards presented a pretty significant and detailed heath care plan last week. The plan, which was analyzed in detail by Jonathan Cohn at the New Republic, provides universal health care but does so through the use of tax credits to create and fund entities for groups of peopuyle to purchase insurance called “health markets” as well as through an “individual mandate” which is a requirement that everyone b insured. It also allows Medicare to compete with private insurers to provide coverage to people through health markets. It is a complex plan that would be funded by rolling back the Bush tax cuts. Although it has the advantage of “giving people who have insurance something they lack now–more security and more choice–without taking away their coverage,” the complexity this engenders makes it difficult to sell. As Cohn notes “grafting universal coverage onto an already complicated system inevitably means drawing up a complicated plan. That’s not particularly helpful in the current media environment.”

The alternative is a straightforward single payer system like that in a bill before Congress, HR 676, that was introduced by John Conyers (and co-sponsored by Dave Loebsack.) This is the system used in the rest of the western world, which leads to significantly lower health care costs than what we have. A single payer plan would be much more effective but is considered less politically feasible. As a result, it is doubtful that any other serious candidate will advocate for it (as opposed to hopeless publicity seekers). However, it is still possible. The national debate on health care is moving increasingly towards a single payer solution. Edwards, by introducing his plan, laid down his marker but, as the debate develops, other candidates who either seek to flank him on the left or merely keep up with the national debate may introduce single payer plans similar to HR 676. In meantime, we will just have to wait and see what their policy teams cook up.

Barack Obama pledged in his annoucement yesterday that “we will have universal health care in America by the end of the next president’s first term.” However, he hasn’t unveiled his plan yet. In the meantime, John Edwards has been the first candidate to unveil a detailed health care plan. It may not be perfect but it is definitely worthy of respect.

1 comment February 11th, 2007