On the Campaign Trail with Ed Tibbetts

We in the Quad-Cities know about Jim Nussle’s success at getting congressional earmarks.

Our former congressman got $50 million for the I-74 bridge. He’s pursued money for the Rock Island Arsenal And, up in Dubuque, he helped with a big bridge project there. There are other examples, of course.

Now that record is being thrown in his face.

Nussle, who represented the Iowa Quad-Cities for five years, was picked to be the White House’s new budget chief this week. And, according to a New York Times article today, Democrats are poring over his 16 years in office looking for pork-barrel spending that might push back against a White House playing hardball on the spending habits of congressional Democrats.

(Read the article here).

Nussle, the former House budget chair, will have to knock heads with Congress over spending, so the more that people know about his pursuit of earmarks while he was a legislator, the harder it will be for the White House to tilt against them when they come out of Congress.

Of course, earmarks aren’t really the biggest problem with government spending (they make up a relatively small part of the pie) but they are an easily targeted slice because often they include ridiculous projects, especially if viewed from a distance. 

Nussle always liked to say that, as House budget chief, he was the guy who set the fence lines (conservatively) but that within those lines he’d work like crazy to help the home folks.

I don’t know if that kind of nuance will work with those who think earmarks are the most obvious example of government spending gone amok. But I suspect that most legislators realize that it’s a rare bird willing to tell their visiting chambers of commerce that, ’Gee, I’d like to help you folks at home with that project — and I know it’s really needed — but earmarks contribute to our growing federal deficit and I’m just not going to play that game.’

Jim Leach did it. Jeff Flake, the Arizona congressman, gets that kind of credit, too. But there aren’t too many others.

Of course, it’ll also be a whole lot easier for a legislator to ignore complaints about earmarks when the complainer used to be in there dollar diving with the rest of them. Perhaps that means they will concentrate elsewhere. You know, where the money really is.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is getting ready to deliver a big speech on government reform tomorrow, and in the lead up the Illinois senator’s revealed his earmark requests.

It’s rare that these much-reviled “pork” requests are made public, though it fits in with Obama’s wish to be considered the guy who will change the way government does business.

Ordinarily, congressmen like to say what they get, but rarely will they say what they ask for. Think about it: If you’d asked for something and aren’t on the list, wouldn’t you be steamed?

At any rate, Obama looks like he’s paying attention to the needs of the Rock Island Arsenal. His 113 requests, which were made public today, include four for the Arsenal that add up to $21.5 million.

Half of that is for factory equipment that can be used in making armor kits for Humvees and other vehicles.

During the days when the factory got little work, it didn’t have the money to keep up with equipment needs, says Jimmy Morgan of the Rock Island Arsenal Development Group. So now they’re trying to catch up.

The last couple years, the Arsenal has gotten about $6 million to $7 million for equipment annually.

Also on Obama’s list: $8 million for the I-74 bridge, $1.6 million for the Western Illinois University campus project in Moline, $500,000 for the entrace to Sunset Marina in Rock Island and $750,000 to replace a couple water towers in Aledo.

Also on the list is $24 million for Mississippi River locks expansion. Most of the work would be done closer to St. Louis than here. But it’s still a big deal for farmers and shippers around here who like it — and a lot of environmentalists who don’t.

Of course, these are just Obama’s requests. We’ll see how the senator comes through. And we’ll check in on his speech tomorrow, too.

U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, got back into the ring with General Services Administrator Lurita Doan Wednesday, and it was a repeat of their March toe-to-toe.

This is mostly an inside-the-Beltway story, but it also provides a look at your congressman at work.

Here’s the gist: Doan, the Republican appointee to head the GSA has been accused of urging several of her subordinate employees to help GOP congressional candidates get elected in 2008. This allegedly took place at a January meeting of political appointees where a White House official discussed targeted ‘08 races.

Doan is alleged, at one point, to have asked: “How can we help our candidates?” She’s said she doesn’t recall it.

Earlier this week, the Office of Special Counsel, a federal investigative agency, called her actions a serious violation of the Hatch Act and urged President Bush to discipline her.

Some high-ranking Democrats called for her resignation.

Here’s where Braley comes in. Back in March, he and Doan went through a lengthy Q-and-A about the meeting at a House Oversight and Government Reform committee, which Braley sits on.

Doan spent a lot of time saying she didn’t recall much of the January meeting, while Braley grilled her repeatedly.

For those of us who heard a lot during the 2006 campaign about Braley being a trial lawyer, it was a chance to see him put his courtroom skills to work.

The House leadership apparently was impressed. It posted the exchange to the video sharing site YouTube and, promoted by liberal blogs, it got quite an audience, with more than 90,000 viewings.

That’s a lot of hits for a political video (though it pales in comparison to such YouTube classics as the Hamster Dance).

At any rate, they were back at it again Wednesday.
The committee brought Doan back for another 3-hour-plus hearing and you can see it again on (yes, on YouTube) right here.

The Democrat leadership posted several videos of the hearing, in fact, and Braley’s office helpfully alerted supporters to the one featuring him.

Like in March, it’s a contentious back and forth. And in a statement, Braley said Doan was just as evasive as in March. He called the hearing the latest example of a Democratic majority finally holding the Bush administration accountable.

For her part, Doan has denied she violated the law or that she tried to exert any pressure on employees to do political work. In fact, her lawyer says the Office of Special Counsel did a hatchet job.

The Republicans on the committee were a combative lot yesterday, labeling the hearing a political sideshow that idled more important work.

It was a lively session, no doubt. But you can judge for yourself. Go to the committee’s web site here and you can see a video of the whole thing.

There are lots of serious allegations at the hearing, but there’s a good bit of political theater, too.

For my money, the best part was Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Doan arguing over how many verb tenses there are in the English language. In fact, it may be the only time in congressional history the phrase “hortatory subjunctive” arose in testimony.

Or, you could just watch the Hamster Dance. Find it here.

R.I.P. Iowa Straw Poll.

Perhaps I shouldn’t say that.

If it’s media attention that makes the Republican Straw Poll what it is, what happens if nobody pays attention?

That’s a big question in the wake of Rudy Giuliani’s and John McCain’s announcements Wednesday that they’ll skip the Straw Poll, the August extravaganza that’s a big money-maker for the Iowa GOP —  and the object or derision of those who don’t have a chance of winning it or don’t share in its spoils.

I won’t pretent I have any great influence. But what of those who do? Already today, a Washington Post blogger has called the Straw Poll “meaningless.” A Politico writer advises his colleagues to take their August vacations.

There undoubtedly will be others writing the same thing.

Giuliani led the mini-stampede with a noon announcment Wednesday. Four hours later, McCain was out the door, saying the event — which eight years ago he disparaged — had lost its meaning again. If Fred Thompson ever thought about coming, he probably isn’t now.

That leaves Mitt Romney among the national front-runners who’s left to compete. His state people said shortly after the news broke that he’s still planning to be play in Ames — but against whom? And, to my main point, what if nobody shows up to record the results?

Much like the caucuses themselves, the Straw Poll gets its oxygen from media attention. And if the national media doesn’t consider it a “key test of organizational strength” then it doesn’t seem likely anybody will bother.

If that’s the case, the twin decisions not only have relevance for the front runners. But, on down the roster of candidates. Consider Tommy Thompson, the ex-Wisconsin governor who was banking on a strong Straw Poll finish to ignite his presidential campaign.

He’ll have to focus his effort on the big show now.

As for the others whose state organizations aren’t as beefy — and who don’t have the money or poll standing nationally, the demise of the Straw Poll would just remove another opportunity to boost themselves.

Of course, the news is still fresh. There have been plenty of writers who have shamed themselves by predicting the demise of the caucuses only to see them survive every presidential cycle.

It could be the same with the Straw Poll.

Or it could be just a whole lot of left over barbecue.

The field of Democratic presidential candidates came off looking better in their second debate Sunday night in New Hampshire than they did in the first forum a month ago in South Carolina — if for no other reason than the format permitted a wider range of discussion.

A lot of their answers were formulaic, but there also was an opportunity for each to dig into some detail, look a bit less stiff and engage the public. This was especially true in the second half of the debate.

As for the issues, Iraq was tackled early and, throughout, remained the most interesting exchange between the Big Three (Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards).

Edwards stuck it to Clinton and Obama by saying they voted the right way on the Iraq War spending bill a couple weeks ago (”no”) but weren’t leaders in getting out front in opposing it.

Obama’s response was if it was leadership Edwards wanted, he should have shown it four and a half years ago when it came to authorize the war. (Edwards, who voted for it, blunted the attack a bit by saying he made a mistake and even going so far as to say Obama was right and he was wrong. Obama was a state senator at the time.).

Clinton, who’s being pressured by Edwards in Iowa, sought to point out the differences are greater between the Democrats and Republicans than among themselves (which she called minor). She did, though, make a not-so-subtle dig at the former senator from North Carolina (and maybe a bit at Obama, too) by noting she’s been casting votes that “make a difference” rather than criticizing from the outside.

I’m not sure if this pushes anyone forward or backward, but it’s a bit more give and take on the issue by the Big Three than we’ve seen in the past.

That’s good. The debate on Iraq may be getting stale to folks in early states who’ve heard a lot of it before. The more they set themselves apart from one another, the more engaged voters will be. 

Obama had a good moment when he took CNN’s Wolf Blitzer to task for trying to pin folks down on saying whether they would support English as the country’s “official” language. Obama said it was aimed at dividing people. That will help reinforce the image he’s a transformational politician.

Obama and Edwards mixed it up on health care. Biden stood out by saying there ought to be more forceful action, including military action, on the killings in Darfur. Biden, whose passion is what people like about him, showed his strength in this instance, though he had others disagree on his policy prescription.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson suggested the possibilitiy of boycotting the 2008 Olympics in China to try to leverage them into being more cooperative. Sen. Chris Dodd, who didn’t seem to get as much time as the others, disagreed.

Richardson also was the first to talk about education. It didn’t come up til nearly the end of the debate and he may have won some points for that.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and Mike Gravel continued being direct in their criticism of the others. Gravel was particularly so, but given his low standing in the early polls, he was ignored.

All in all, it was two hours well spent (okay, maybe 90 minutes).