Independent Caucus

Days One, Two, Three...

The days are going by faster than I can write about them.  I need to pick things up.

The rest of Day One was driving as quickly as internal combustion and the weather would let us through a sequence of corn fields via a sequence of perpendicular 2-lane highways to the 4 campaign events the Senator had that day around Iowa.  The towns were nice, really.  Nice small towns, once you got to them, but little in between, like, for instance, opportunities for food as mentioned in an earlier post.  Fresh snow had fallen that morning and throughout the early afternoon, throwing all events into temporary doubt.  The one in greatest doubt was the first, particularly since it was the only one the Senator flew to, and because blowing snow and low visibility are sure prescriptions for not being able to land on a small airstrip.  Governor Richardson, in fact, elected not to land that same morning in the same town, canceling his event there.  Senator Biden made it, his slightly later arrival perhaps helping in that regard, but also due to no small degree of determination on the part of the Senator, and also his pilot, to get him there.

Thankfully, the townspeople were determined, too, and turned out in force.  A terrific crowd in the downstairs meeting room of a pizza restaurant.  It's in rooms like that all over the state where the fortunes of presidential candidates are made or lost.  It truly is a beautiful thing.  Candidates, however well-funded or not well-funded, cannot run in the larger states the kind of personal campaigns they run in Iowa.  They can't reach a large enough percentage of the electorate that way.  The electorate is simply too large, whatever one's budget and whatever one's personal energy level.  But in Iowa, you are talking about something like 130,000 Iowans who caucus.  Given several weeks time, you can talk to a large enough percentage of them to win, place or show in Iowa, make the cut, and move on to the next set of states.  That's what Iowa does, and that's all it does.  It does not pick a president.  It cuts down the size of the field, generally, in about half, and hands off those candidates to the next set of states for their consideration.  Four candidates will emerge from Iowa among the Democrats.  We are all working feverishly to see that Joe Biden is among them.

No sooner were we traveling to and setting up for a campaign event in one town than were we leaving that town for the next event.  The frustrating part of that is at each event, until thankfully the last, and for some reason also the first, I didn't have time to listen to the Senator's full talk.  The question and answer is the best, and where he is so strong, and it was usually right before that where we were in the car again and traveling to the next town in advance of the Senator.  In one town, Bill Clinton was also there, and speaking at about the time Joe Biden's question and answer period started.  We lost, at most, about 5 attendees of the more than 120 present to Bill.  Pretty damned good.  Bill is a draw, but so is our guy.

And then day over, food at the casino hotel (restaurants stay open later) with about a dozen of us, back to the hotel, and sleep over blogging.

Day Two did not have the glamour or excitement of Biden campaign stops.  It had instead the realities of grassroots campaigning.  The proverbial "ground game", as campaigns like to say.  What that meant for us was phone calls.  Hundreds of them.  I have no idea where the phone lists came from, our two full-time guys in the office were magically producing them faster than we could make the calls.  I have to say, Iowans are troopers to withstand such a phone onslaught, obviously not just from us but all the campaigns combined.  Do people's phones ever stop ringing this time every four years in Iowa?  The answer, I'm quite sure, is no.  They stop the afternoon of the election (note I did not say the morning of the election).  And the events don't stop until then either.  Our guy has an event right here in Waterloo about 5 blocks from our offices, at a restaurant / bar, at 8am.  And it will be packed, I can assure you, as Iowans are the ultimate procrastinators with their vote, and aren't going to pass on one more extremely good opportunity to see and hear a candidate in person, and ask a question, the answer to which could very well determine their vote.

And then day over, bar food (don't think for a second that campaigning is a healthy endeavor) with the gang (smaller gang than first day) where the best thing proved to be the fish sandwich and/or Bass Ale, and where we got to peripherally watch New England go undefeated, much to the groans and jeers of the patrons.

Day Three...that was today...which I'll write about tomorrow, as tomorrow is an early one - important staff meeting at 9am, which for those who know me, most definitely qualifies as early.

Initiation Day

Day one started with the usual "diurnal libations", as my father used to say.  It's a nice room.  Roomy.  Two queen-size beds, which look like near kings with all the heavy, poofy, winter bedding on them, white, not that nasty compendium of darker colors one sometimes finds, often in some unimaginative striped configuration intended to hide stains and match the curtains, which are basically bedspreads turned on their head.  But not this place.  The curtains are striped, but the beds are white-white, almost daring the next stain.  I like their courage.

So I'm down with the beds.  Very nice.  Back to diurnally libating.  Bathroom is also large.  I think things come just generally larger in Iowa than the east coast. Breakfasts, bathrooms and bedspreads included.  I got a clean shave - again, a good idea, like breakfast, though I didn't know at the time that my face would be in public view and representing the campaign till well beyond the start of 5 o'clock shadow, making shaving an essential.  Interestingly enough, I was oblivious to the water during the shave.  The shave came and went with the usual pattern of upstrokes, downstrokes and sidestrokes, and the water seemed like water.  But then onto the shower-libation phase.  There's that moment when soaped up from head to toe that is the least timely moment to lose water pressure, or, in my case, realize that the water is only about 75% water and the other 25% water softener.  My goodness.  It was like salad dressing.  I rinsed and rinsed and couldn't get the water off me.  I vowed to raise this issue with the Senator at first opportunity.

I punted, finally, on actually "feeling" rinsed, and just toweled off and got dressed, kind of like, if you've ever done this, getting dressed up and going outside when you are sicker than sick, because you feel if you just act not sick you'll feel that way too.  And, to my great pleasure, that worked where the shower water was concerned.  I felt great, actually, but was quickly nearing departure time for the office, and no breakfast, so I had to hustle up.  I reached for the warm clothing, which I brought plenty of, a dark, fleece, zippered shirt which zips all the way up (helpful, in the Iowan wind, I found) and can still fit a suit jacket over.  So that was the outfit for the day.  The suit jacked proved key, since Iowans don't wear them too much, at least, not to hear candidates speak, and so it clearly identified me as a "staffer", which was both good for them and for me.

My car, honestly, have I mentioned? is a wonderful car.  It's the new Honda Accord.  Black outside.  Black inside.  And bless it to no end, heats up quickly.  But back to our story.

I got to the ofice at 9am.  I had grabbed perhaps an 8-ounce coffee and the largest banana I spotted from the continental breakfast bar at the hotel on the way out.  I arrived with those things and my computer.  I was "starving Marving", as those say who are adverse to contractions, and the banana got consumed the moment I was done with some initial introductions, all taking place outside the offices, as Josh, one of the full-time staffers in charge, and one or two volunteers who, like me, had arrived that day, helped him load up his car with the placards, signs, stickers, tape, and the boxes of clipboards, sign-in sheets and Biden position papers which, I learned at the first campaign event of the day, are the necessary implements, along with a portable PA, for putting on an event with the Senator and from several dozen to several hundred Iowans.

Josh said, "Why don't you come with me."  Not a question.  Not a command.  And the style with which Josh makes assignments and decisions impacting what you do.  And we were off, just like I need to be now if I am to not once again break the cardinal rule of missing breakfast.

More later, no doubt, based on the first two days, much later.

Day One Lession: Eat Breakfast

There is no food in Iowa.  This is not widely known.  Oh, the other thing, is that campaigns, at least this one (Biden), don't stop.  I mean, they really don't stop.  I don't know if anyone goes to the rest room.  I'm only aware that I do, maybe once.  The hard conclusion I arrived at on the first day, and something after 4pm, and famished, is - eat breakfast.  It will likely be the only good food opportunity you get all day till 10pm.  I'd write more than that.  In fact, this paragraph seems entirely insufficient.  I mean, it's one paragraph, after all.  It's now the end of the second day, and there's plenty I could write, but all I really, truly want to do, as my fingers type these words while calling upon the bare minimum of cerebral resources to do it, is sleep.  Fun stuff...more laaahhhter...uhmm...good night.

Arriving...Waterloo

15 hours after I started, that is.  The drive doesn't take that long from Cleveland, to be sure.  But I had delays, mostly my own sleepiness.  Couldn't wake up.  That's rare for me, and was ill-timed today.  I kept having to pull over to wake up.  I gave in at one point, and just slept for a while.

I also had to stop and make 50 campaign phone calls.  The campaign had emailed me a list.  Senator Biden has no less then 4 campaign events tomorrow in Iowa.  I had part of the phone list for the Cresco event.  The job was just to let these folks know the event was happening, and to invite them to attend.  I was surprised - only 6 folks out of 50 hung up on me.  I left messages for about half of them.  The other half I reached someone, often, not the person I had intended to, but a relative, a friend.  Most were nice and patient with me, a perfect stranger calling out of the blue.  Several sounded - tired - however.  Just sort of tired of it all, all the attention, all the phone calls, all the politics and campaigning.  If my perceptions are any good, Iowans are ready for this election to happen and be done.  One woman talked to me for quite some time.  Told me about her son, her grandchildren.  Said she was a little embarrassed about it, but uneasy that Barack Obama was once a Muslim.  Interesting.  Haven't heard that view echoing about much.  I asked about Biden and she said, "I really don't know too much about him."

"Rats," as Charlie Brown used to say.

The hotel is nice.  Hampton Inn.  Both wi-fi and in-wall internet.  Nice.  And necessary.  There's a gym, decent pool.  The young woman at the front desk is cheerful and friendly, if a little frazzled from the multi-tasking excesses demanded by a somewhat budget hotel.

Campaign day starts tomorrow at 9 central time, which is key, in that there's one more hour sleep for me.

Rhyming.  Huh.  Must be tired.

Hope those who celebrate Christmas had a nice one.  I have a movie recommendation, "Charlie Wilson's War" with Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, and the dude who won the Oscar in "Capote".  A really good, entertaining, as well as educational film.  Well worth the $10.

What Rise of Huckabee Tells Us

Why Huckabee?  I mean, really.  Funny name.  Governor of a small state.  Not at all a draft choice of the Republican National Committee.  So, why?

I think about this, partly, in contrast to the guy I favor for the Democratic nomination - Senator Joe Biden.  His ground team is working hard in Iowa, and I soon to join them.  And we shall all see how well he does on election day.  Yet, for now, Huckabee certainly has outperformed Biden in gaining the attention of the national media and those Iowans willing to participate in the famously unreliable Iowa polls.

Why?

Biden is/was certainly better known nationally prior to the start of the campaigns.  Biden is/was on the Sunday talking-head shows all the time.  All the time.  I follow politics closely and had never heard of Huckabee until probably the first Republican presidential debate.

They are both great speakers.  Biden is truly a leader in the Senate and in the country on matters of foreign policy, and has a venerable record in fighting crime (the Biden/Clinton crime bill was a big success, and key to the success Giuliani had in reducing crime in New York City), fighting violence against women (Violence Against Women Act), and on civil rights.  Why is Biden still fighting and clawing to get noticed and talked about by the national media and Huckabee is coasting?

One can only surmise, but here's what I surmise.  Republicans didn't/don't like their candidates as much as Democrats did, especially, the "glamour" candidates of Clinton and Obama.  And that fact left them open and eager to anoint someone new with the object of their favor.  Biden is, in many respects, more acceptable to Democrats in regard to his policy positions than Huckabee is acceptable to Republicans.  But, Democrats aren't viscerally dissatisfied with the prospect of having either Hillary or Barack or Edwards as their nominee.  Therefore, it is tougher breaking through that "first tier" for Biden than it was for Huckabee.  Democrats have not been viscerally looking "for something else" and Republicans have.

It's Biden's job to make them.  Make them viscerally want to - look - elsewhere.  In my view, Biden is a nightmare for Republicans, because first of all he is respected by so many of them, because he is a very centrist Democrat (a la Bill Clinton), because he is experienced, because he is proven in working together with Republicans to make policy and draft legislation which solves important problems or addresses important national priorities with the broad support of both political parties as most recently demonstrated with the 75 votes his Iraq strategy received in a non-binding vote.

I've said this before, but Biden does not have Hillary's problem of being polarizing; he does not have Barack's problem of having the least experience of any candidate Democrat or Republican; he does not have Edwards problem of being left of center among Democrats much less the nation.

For any of those others, the Republican strategy for the general election is easy to imagine.  It's hard as hell to imagine if the nominee is Biden.  I hope he and his troops are pointing that out, and making that case, long and loud, out on the campaign trail in this final week.

It is, in fact, in this blogger's view, his final hurdle to becoming President.  If he succeeds in making that case - and it will take an inner desire and resolve to give to his country its best possible President to do that, that is, not just directly and forcefully making the case for himself (something he's done for months), but much more importantly now that he has succeeded in that, making the case against Hillary, Barack and John Edwards - then he will be President.  If he does not succeed, then Democrats, while thinking well of Biden, will not bother to look beyond the "first tier".

They won't have to, they will feel.  It will be "Joe, we love you, but we're very OK with these guys," and he will not be President.  He's made his case for himself.  He needs to make the case against the first tier, and the case is there, legitimate, and ready and waiting to be made.  If Senator Biden doesn't make it, you can be sure the Republican nominee will, and effectively, in the general election campaign.  The case will be made, regardless.  Better that Biden make it.

To Cleveland...then Iowa

Well, friends, I'm off to Cleveland for Christmas, and then to Iowa to take part in this Joe Biden momentum which I understand to be building out there from recent writings by David Yepsen, Chris Matthews, and from updates I've received from campaign staff already there.  But I would be going without even those hopeful signs.  I would be going because Iowa is the first, meaning, no one has spoken, officially, about choices or preferences for President.  It's the first and only clean slate, where, truly, every vote should be cast for that person one believes to be, in the voter's heart and mind, the best choice, rather than influenced by some foregone reality of past votes, delegate counts, and the like.  It's truly Iowans' duty - and every presidential election, they take on and execute that duty very seriously, fortunately for the rest of the country - to listen to, meet, greet, host, discuss the candidates and watch them debate, then, in that first round of the Caucuses, vote their conscience, their first choice for President.  I have done that, best I could while not being in Iowa, and my conscience says, "Vote Biden."  I'm going out to Iowa to see if I can't explain to a few folks how and why I feel that way, such that in the end, they may "Vote Biden" too.  It will be my first time actively participating in our democracy and in an election.  I'm 46 and that's probably overdue, long as I have liked politics, and long as I have simply been in this country, where, to our great strength, elections happen all the time.

I'll be updating this blog, daily, I hope, with the particulars and goings on in Iowa.  I understand I'll be in Waterloo, to which my first reaction was "Water-where?"  But that's Iowa.  A small, rural state.  Lots of farms.  Lots of corn.  Lots of serious people where presidential elections are concerned.  This...I tell you...will be fun.

Merry Christmas, happy holidays, and happy New Year, everyone.  Next post from Waterloo.

I don't know if I can post photos on this blog or not.  If I can, there will be some.  I know at the very least I can post one photo, which currently shows me looking serious but bemused in the upper left-hand corner.  If that's my only photo-posting option, I'll try to update it with a photo-of-the-day.  If there's any particular thing you think you'd like to see a photo of, email me (intilij@yahoo.com).  I hope to get a shot of the Field of Dreams.  I loved that movie.  I cry like a kid during that catch scene every time.  It's in Dyersville.  Ok, so, where's Dyersville?..   :)

-Joe Intili

What Pelosi / Reid Should Do Now To Make Amends

This is all they have to do.

They should hold a press conference, jointly, I think would be best, and acknowledge they screwed up.  That they didn't stand up to the President and congressional Republicans on the AMT, and the $80 billion it added to the debt, and they should have.  They simply should have.  They should say, "We let you down, those majorities who voted us into the legislative majority in the Congress specifically on the matter and the issue of fiscal discipline.  Here's how we are going to make it up to you.  We are telling you, we are telling our Republican colleagues in the Congress, and we are telling the President, right here, how we are going to make it up to you, so that they are well aware of it, well in advance."

And then they should tell them this, that the next time the matter of Iraq war funding comes before the Congress - and if you've been following these Iraq appropriations, they tend to be in installment amounts of right around, you guessed it, $80 billion - that they, personally, i.e. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid, will not allow the bill to come up for a vote, since they control this, unless the $80 billion is NOT an "emergency supplemental appropriation" (read: 100% borrowed from China, Japan, Mexico, etc), but rather, a normal budget appropriation PAID FOR by either cuts in other areas or an $80 billion tax increase on something and someone.

Americans well know, that, at some point, they must pay for things out of their paycheck - and not by asking the bank for a loan, or applying for another credit card.

Pelosi, Reid and Hoyer can make up for their blunder and apostasy of yesterday, and soon enough, the next time that the next Iraq appropriation comes before the Congress.

And they better be prepared - and to let the President, Republicans, and, most, most importantly, the American people know well in advance - to shut down the government to do it.  Because, it will come very close to that.  Very close.  With this President.  Very, very close.  Nancy, Harry and Steny will have to look into his eyes, be prepared for a good, long stare, and to not blink.

Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid Must Go

This was easy.  In the arena of political leverage and arm-twisting, this was not even hard.  Everything was set.  It was game, set, match on their racquet and they double-faulted.  And then they whined, and complained and blamed it on the other side.

"He hollered 'Noonan!' right when I served!"  "He moved..uh...he moved...right before I served, he moved!"  "He squeaked his sneakers on the court - intentionally! - right before I served, and that's why I missed!"

Let me just paint this scene:

1. It's the 11th hour - the 23rd hour, if you will - before Christmas, and all the Congressmen and Senators and their respective staffs want to do is complete the final legislative day of the the year and go home;
2. The final bill is a catch-all (read: omnibus) bill of 3000 pages or more representing only funding for nearly the entire government for the next fiscal year, including the next installment of war funding for Afghanistan and Iraq;
3. The President, with his fellow Republicans in the House and Senate dutifully following his lead, had drawn a line in the dirt, saying they wanted these things in that omnibus bill, among others:  (a) an AMT waiver (read: another tax cut), (b) no closing of a tax loophole - one allowing hedge fund managers making hundreds of millions to not pay federal income tax on that money by keeping it in the Cayman Islands - in order to pay for and offset the AMT waiver, as opposed to taking out an additional loan of $80 billion to pay for it, (c) no cuts in the amount of $80 billion in the President's budget to again pay for the AMT waiver instead of borrowing for it
4. The Democrats in control (read: they decide which bills come to the House and Senate floors for debate and vote) of both houses of Congress, but without a veto-proof margin in the House, nor a veto-proof or filibuster-proof margin in the Senate;
5. The American people, in the 2006 election, resoundingly defeated House and Senate Republicans in favor of Democrats, most analysts agreeing, because of the 3-headed monster of Iraq, corruption, and, yes, a lack of fiscal discipline which had caused the national debt to explode on their watch.
6. When Pelosi, Reid and Hoyer took control of both houses after the elections, they promised those who had given the reigns to them, that they would:  "Bring fiscal discipline back to this body!....Pass Pay-Go! Which Republicans did away with when what it says is we will pay our bills! And not just deficit spend! And which helped produce 4 consecutive budget surpluses under President Clinton!...."  And then, to their credit, they passed and reinstituted Pay-Go.

That's the set up.  So what would you say?  If you are a bridge player, would you say that's a strong hand or a weak hand for the Democratic leadership, i.e. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid?

So, if you had to guess which legislation passed yesterday, what would you guess?  If you guessed that the President, and his loyal Republicans in both houses, got exactly what they wanted, including an AMT waiver, no closing of the loophole, and therefore an increase in the national debt of $80 billion, then you would be correct.

Which leads me to this:  if the Democratic leadership can't play that hand, then they simply must go.  Their members, if they had any courage or resolve at all, would not vote them into the leadership positions next Congress.

The Democrats actually passed a "waiving of the rules", i.e. which includes a waiving of their own Pay-Go rule, which, by the way, is so much more than just any ol' rule.  It was their promise to those who voted for them and put them in the leadership in 2006, that they would stop the bleeding, stop the borrowing, and make the Congress pay for what it wants out of federal tax revenues.  And by voting to waive their own rule, they made possible the next vote, which waived the AMT for another year adding $80 billion to our debt.

ALL they had to do - with an omnibus bill which included funding for nearly the ENTIRE federal government, including war funding!, was to draw their OWN line in the sand as respects the deficit.

"We will not add $80 billion to the debt with this bill, Mr. President.  Present us with whichever solutions and options you wish, and we will consider them, and try hard to work with you.  But we will not add $80 billion to the debt, suspend Pay-Go, and break the promise of fiscal discipline which we made to the American people after the last election.  We will not add $80 billion.  We will not add $10 billion.  We will not add $1 billion.  We will not add one bloody red cent.  If you want something - pay for it - and we will consider your offer.  Further, we are not going to continue passing stop-gap spending bills to fund the government at last year's levels.  It's time to pass a budget.  We will consider all of your budget suggestions which do not increase the deficit.  We will not consider those that do.  We will not consider any more stop-gap bills.  We - together - pass a budget for the American people, or we shut down the government, and roll the proverbial dice as to whom the American people shall scream loudest at, and penalize the most at the ballot box next time, because, Mr. President, some things are worth losing elections for."

THAT'S all they needed to say, and THAT'S what leaders DO say!

The President needs his war funding!  Is he going to delay that funding indefinitely AND shut down the government in order to protect the tax privileges of a handful of uber-rich hedge fund managers living God knows where, but where their taxable incomes are living in the Caymans?  Please!  The American people would crucify him!  And, for goodness sakes, rightly so!

The last time we had this nearly identical battle being waged, that's EXACTLY what President Clinton did say, and the government stopped, and monuments closed, and government workers were told to stay home, and so on. And then what happened?  The phones started ringing.  Angry voters, awakened by a locked door at the Washington Monument or the prospect of no paycheck or loss of a federal government client, or whatever, started calling and demanding that Newt Gingrich and his, till then, solidly united caucus, work with the President, pass some of what the President wanted, including, even then, balanced budget provisions (in fact, provisions for paying down the debt, for once), and get the government open again.

And what did President Clinton hear?  Well, by and large, he heard, "You go, Bill."

Did he know he would hear that?  Nope.  He's pretty smart, but he couldn't know how it would play, whom the voters would direct their anger at.  He just knew there would be anger directed somewhere.

Some things are worth losing elections for.

Until Nancy, Steny and Harry stop collectively being "Blinky" (see previous post), our budget and our policies may as well reside with a single President and a single party, determined to... "We're going to cut your taxes!  Because, see, we believe taxes are really just the people's money, and are better left with the people!"...determined to pander to current voters with lower taxes, and hope those same voters don't notice or understand that the budgets they offer are not any lower to compensate, and in that sense, there is no real tax cut, just borrowing with interest, which is just a deferred tax increase on ourselves a few years down the road...with interest.

Shame...on....them.

Pelosi and Reid Fail to Lead after '06 Elections

I almost titled this:  "Blinky and Blinky"

When you are in charge, the responsibility for outcomes good or bad reasonably falls to you.

On no day have I been more aware of the degree to which Nancy Pelosi has been a colassal failure as Speaker than today, and equally, has Harry Reid been an equal failure as Senator Majority Leader, and more generally, have Democrats in the House and in the Senate been failures collectively as a party.

After a resounding vote of confidence by the American people nationwide which swept Democrats into majorities in both houses, though slim, the Democrats collectively, and their leaders most poignantly, failed time and again to show the mettle required to stare down an adversary - and make no mistake, these, like 'em or not, and I don't, are adversarial, partisan, political times - and make the other side blink first.  No, rather, the reward the voters received for placing their confidence in the Democrats was the discovery that leading the party was Madam Blinky and her Senator Majority Leader, Blinky.

This blog doesn't often resort to parody or name calling.  So I will return to using their names, but such is the depth of my disappointment and my criticism of both of them, and their majority caucus.

Today, in a final flurry of activity, legislation and votes, as our representatives and their staffs hurry to adjourn for the Christmas break, the Congress passed these things:

• An AMT waiver which adds $80 billion more to our burgeoning national debt, because Republicans refused to support the closing of a tax loophole which allows hedge fund managers to keep millions of dollars of income untaxed in the Cayman Islands and other places until they actually spend it, which would have offset the loss of revenue from the waiver, and been legal under the Democrats own Pay-Go rule, which says that legislation may not pass unless it is revenue neutral, i.e. does not add to the national debt.  Republicans and the President would not accept "a new tax" - which is what they called the closing of the loophole, lest anyone think Congress really intended that really rich people be able to avoid income tax by keeping their money in the Cayman Islands.  Republicans and the President also would not, I say, would not, offer up a package of $80 billion in spending cuts as an alternative to closing the loophole, so that Pay-Go could be satisfied.  So, the co-equal branch of government known as the legislative branch, led in both houses by Democrats, caved...I don't know why...maybe just to get home more quickly for Christmas, and put up some lights and garland?  I have no idea, because beyond it being IRRESPONSIBLE to deficit spend AGAIN, and to pass ANOTHER deferred tax onto our children and grandchildren, it literally gives hope and rise to those who, at least at present, don't wish us to be a government of the majority, by, for and of the people.  Because THOSE people spoke at the ballot box in '06, and they spoke for accountability and fiscal discipline, which the Republicans they voted out had not delivered.  And now neither have the Democrats.
• An omnibus spending bill with something like 9000 earmarks in it, many of those "air-dropped" in the middle of the night, and not debated at all.  While the sum total cost of those earmarks are a minor contributor, in the wake of mammoth contributors like the Iraq war, to our deficit and debt, they are a glaring example of hypocrisy, since Speaker Pelosi promised a dramatic reduction in earmarks, and an end to anonymous earmarks.  Oh, by the way, some large number, and I would have to check, maybe all, of the 9000 earmarks are anonymous under a loophole in the earmark reform rule they themselves wrote and passed earlier in the year.

They complain "the President wouldn't budge" and "our repeated attempts were thwarted by filibuster from Senate Republicans..."

Oh..just...shut up.  And lead, or step aside and let someone else.

Bill Clinton would have shut down the government - in fact, he did once, as you may recall, in the face of a similarly intransigent Republican Congress.  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had to decide that this omnibus funding bill, and the priorities which earlier Democratic versions reflected, and their responsibility to be good stewards of the treasury and this country's fiscal security and health, were worth shutting down the government, if that other co-equal branch - the Presidency - continued to hold to a rigid, unforgiving, uncompromising line.

The American people would have cheered!!!  The President needed that omnibus bill more than the Democrats, in his mind.  That's my view.  He needed his Iraq spending.  Now, we all needed it, to be clear.  But his very political reputation RIDES on it.  It's the only thing his entire Presidency has been about.  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid failed to do what they were asked in the last election specifically to do - change the direction of this President.  To do that, as this President doesn't blink easily, you better have toothpicks holding your eyelids open, or, better yet, a little leadership, a little backbone, a little respect for votes, and voting, and for the represented.

Campaigning With Truth

Telling the truth to the American people (that "They can handle it, and want the truth") has been a key theme of Senator Biden's for the last several weeks.  I think it's the right one.  His point is you do no one any favors - not the American people, not the Democratic party, not the international community - by offering unrealistic if not impossible proposals or solutions to important problems.  In fact, you simply weaken further the American people's belief in politicians and in our American government (note persistently low approval ratings of both the President and Congress).

In this effort to campaign with truth, to level with the American people, the Senator has challenged his fellow Democratic opponents, as well as the Republicans, on their proposals which in the Senator's view fell into the category of unrealistic if not impossible.  He challenged Richardson and Barack on their timetables for pulling out troops, saying their timetables were impossible, until both candidates upped their estimates to something more realistic.  He challenged Hillary and Barack on their votes to cut Iraq funding, when some of that funding builds MRAPs to protect our troops and literally save lives.

But the Senator has only one month before the Caucuses, and there are obvious critiques of the other candidates - specifically, HIllary, Barack and Edwards - the Senator has avoided to this point.  They are truths, too, very important ones, not just politically, but in reality, in terms of the effectiveness of the next President.  And with one month left the Senator must speak to these, and repeatedly, if he is not to edit the truths he is willing to speak to only those which don't ruffle the feathers of his opponents, who are also, likely, his friends.

Here's the truth which is all over political call-in programs, and not overly partisan ones, such as CSPAN radio, which ordinary Americans, Democrat and Republican, are saying, criticisms they are making time and again, and which are valid, and which the Republican nominee will make, whoever he is, as will 527s, in earnest, if the Democratic nominee is Hillary, Barack or Edwards, and they are the same ones you hear at work, around the water-cooler, at the bar, on the train, etc.  Here is how I think the Senator must speak to them:

• "Here's the thing.  And it's the truth, and I don't know why, and don't agree with it.  But Hillary is a polarizing figure in American politics, perhaps, even more than Bill Clinton was. I didn't understand the enmity directed at her and her husband while Bill Clinton was President.  I don't understand it now.  But it's a fact.  And I have no doubts that Republicans in the Congress will be willing to work with me on legislation they would otherwise counter and obstruct if it were coming from a Clinton administration, even if it were the very same legislation.  We've gone through, and are still in, a terribly polarizing, partisan, red-state-blue-state period in American politics.  The big problems of international terrorism, health care, Social Security, Medicare, reversing America's skyrocketing debt, and so on, will take tremendous cross-party cooperation to accomplish. I have shown, most recently with the 75-vote plan in the Senate to reduce forces in Iraq, and over my career, an ability to work effectively across the isle, and I am the better bet than Senator Clinton for being able to do that as your president."
• "I don't think Barack is ready to be president, and I say that with all due respect to him.  It's not a matter of thinking I am more ready.  I don't think he is ready - period.  You will hear people say on this, well, President Kennedy didn't have much experience before becoming President, which is just hooey, really.  He was a young president, to be sure, but his political career began the moment, almost, that he returned from the War.  He was a U.S. Congressman for 6 years, a Senator for 8, and, as we all know, a famous war hero and PT boat captain in World War II, a War which made everyone grow up, and take on leadership and responsibility, more quickly than otherwise.  Barack had 8 years as an Illinois state senator, and 3 years now as a U.S. Senator, and I know he includes, as he should, his experience before that as a teacher and activist, but I haven't heard Barack make the comparison to Kennedy, and I don't expect to.  Further, in the same manner that Hillary is, in my view, extraordinarily vulnerable to attacks from Republicans to being polarizing or back-to-the-future, Barack is and will remain extraordinarily vulnerable to this question of whether he is ready for the highest office in the land at a time of great international crisis and serious domestic challenges here at home.  No one, no one questions whether I am ready, whether I have the experience, the seasoning, the judgment, the ability, the strength to lead this country.  But it is a vulnerability, both political and very real, that Senator Obama will have throughout the general, and once in office, if elected."
• "In a nearly 50/50 country, where presidential elections have been won or lost by a small and precarious 'middle' in between the staunchly red and the staunchly blue, John's message - which pushes and especially has pushed of late on class themes of rich versus poor, a common, familiar theme very much associated with the farther left elements of our party - is one, in my view, and I think it's quite clear, is likely not to be persuasive, nor speak to the larger concerns of this unfortunately too small segment of the electorate.  Senator Edwards will present the eventual Republican nominee with, and be extraordinarily and I think rightly vulnerable to, partisan attacks that he is out of the mainstream, that he is too liberal for America, that he wants to divide us even further than we already are, not just on taxes, Iraq, and so on, but on rich versus poor.  I don't think that is what America needs right now, or ever, honestly.  I don't think the precarious middle who will choose our next president will think that, and it will be his strength and also his tremendous vulnerability if he is the Democratic nominee."

Senator Biden needs to hammer on these themes in these final weeks. He's done a great job - and his Iowa campaign staff - getting him out there, getting him to the valuable, enviable place he is, where no one questions (no one in the national media, no one on the Republican side) whether he is ready and qualified to be president.  Mission accomplished, there.  Now he needs to speak directly to why the nominee should not be Hillary or Barack or John Edwards, instead, and in that respect, he needs to tell the truth some more.