On the Campaign Trail with Ed Tibbetts

Not that there was much doubt, but ex-1st District congressional candidate Mike Whalen has terminated his campaign committee.

The Federal Election Commission web site said he did it earlier this week. Whalen, the Bettendorf restaurateur, ran unsuccessfully against Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, last year in Iowa-1.

Brian Kennedy, another GOP hopeful last year, terminated his committee, too. Ex-state legislator Bill Dix still has an open committee, but he hasn’t raised any money.

(9:45 a.m.) John Edwards continues to crank out the policy proposals. Today, he’s pitching a plan in Des Moines that would require employers to offer pension-less workers a new portable retirement plan.

Edwards says he’d offer a $500 tax credit to encourage individual savings, calling it a better deal than the tax deduction they’re getting now.

He also says he’d change the law so workers can claim lost pension benefits, like they do wages, when an employer goes bankrupt. 

(4:01 p.m.) U.S. Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill., will launch his reelection campaign with a rally Saturday at the Laborers’ Local 309 Hall, 2835 7th Ave., Rock Island. It’s slated to begin at 10 a.m.

Comes word from the Giuliani camp: Rudy will be in Davenport next Wednesday. Time and place to be announced.

I think this is the fourth visit for him. In fact, Tuesday’s visit by Mitt Romney notwithstanding, it looks like we’re seeing more of the mayor lately than the others on the GOP side.

Of course, maybe he’s just back for another Magic Mountain.

UPDATE (Sunday, 10 a.m.) Here’s details of the visit. Wednesday, Oct. 24, at the Starlite Ballroom, Mississippi Valley Fairgrounds. Doors open at 5:45 p.m. The program starts at 6 p.m. This will be Giuliani’s fourth visit since mid-July.

Rep. Bruce Braley’s scored quite the coup. The Waterloo Democrat’s office announced today that presidential hopeful Barack Obama will be the special guest at his Nov. 18 ”Bruce, Blues and Barbecue” fundraiser.

Already, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have agreed to be at separate installments of the freshman congressman’s fete.

This will be the 3rd such event (or the 3th, 4th and 5th, depending on how you’re counting).

Clinton will be in Davenport on Nov. 4. Edwards will be in Dubuque on Nov. 11. Obama will be in Waterloo on the 18th.

Naturally, all three presidential hopefuls would like to get Braley’s endorsement. He’s a pretty popular guy with the same Democrats who will go to the caucuses.

So far, though, he’s holding off.

Jeff Giertz, a spokesman, said Friday that Braley hasn’t even decided whether he’ll make an endorsement.

Throwing in with one candidate or another has its risks. But it has rewards, too. Someday, if Braley wants to run for Senate (Tom Harkin has to retire someday), then getting behind a future president could be a big help.

There will be a redistricting in a few years, too, which has the potential of throwing two Democrats into the same district.

The risk, of course, is backing the wrong person or angering consituents whose horse doesn’t get the nod.

To date, all four of the Democrats in Congress are holding the endorsement card pretty close to the vest. Neither Harkin, Braley nor Reps. Dave Loebsack or Leonard Boswell have played it yet.

Congressional endorsements are a mixed bag. Howard Dean got Harkin’s backing three years ago but still finished third. And, eight years ago, the entire Republican delegation in Iowa backed George W. Bush.

Bush won Iowa, but there’s some question how much the endorsements really pushed him over the line.

I would expect the congressionals will play or fold the endorsement card fairly close to the caucus date.

In the meantime, they’ll benefit from a heaping helping of presidential competitiveness in Iowa.

Braley’s having thirds.

Have I mentioned he doesn’t even have an opponent yet?

As expected, the U.S. House upheld President Bush’s veto of the bill to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program today, and the reaction is starting to come in.

Reps. Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack, Iowa Democrats, called it a disappointing result and said it’s a moral imperative to insure kids. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, called the vote “deeply disturbing.”

Rep. Steve King, the Republican who represents the west side of the state, also pulled no punches in defending his vote to sustain the veto.

His own name for SCHIP is drawing some national attention, too. Says King: ”SCHIP stands for Socialized, Clinton-style Hillarycare for Illegals and their Parents.”

The quote is toward the top of the Washington Post’s story on the failed override today.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican who brokered the compromise bill and pushed for the veto override, took a different approach. Grassley, ever the farmer, is going back to the drawing board.

“The stage is set to continue working on a bicameral, bipartisan approach that can do one of two things, either get a presidential signature or enough votes in the House of Representatives,” he said.

Last week, it was Iowa SEIU that endorsed John Edwards. Today, comes the news the 3,000-member Iowa Postal Workers Union has given him the nod.

“John Edwards is far and away the strongest candidate to win the White House, take on the special interests and stand up for hard-working Americans,” says Bruce Clark, the union’s president.

Here’s an article in the American Prospect that takes a sharp knife to Iowa’s caucuses. And, more specifically, to Iowans. The writer faults Iowa’s lousy participation in the caucuses (good point) and suggests we’re not as smart as the fawning politicians say we are about public affairs.

The headline reads: “The Myth of the Rational Iowa Voter.” It doesn’t get much friendlier from there.

This isn’t all that unusual. At some point in every caucus cycle, Iowa becomes a target of folks who don’t like the way presidential nominees are picked.

They say the caucuses aren’t democratic. Too few people go. Iowans are overwhelmingly white.

Each of these arguments have some substance, but they also have counterpoints.

Usually, it’s a little closer to the actual caucus date before folks start blasting away at us, but it’s not unusual.

That said, I found this article to be a bit nastier than criticisms I’ve seen in the past. New Hampshire also gets some attention, but the sharpest barbs seem to be reserved for Iowans.

(Note: I first saw the piece on the Politico web site).

In our defense, we in Iowa know we’re pretty lucky to get the attention we do.

Most caucus-goers I know don’t feel entitled to our status, nor do they take it for granted.

There are exceptions, of course. I’ve cringed a couple times when I’ve heard Iowans introducing candidates stealing their pander-lines and talking about how educated we are. And then there are the people asking questions at events who forget that the candidates are the ones to make speeches, not them.

Still, it’s a humble lot I continue to experience at caucus events. I can’t count the number of people who still say, ”We’re so lucky to get all this attention?” And we are.

Most Iowans don’t expect it; we’re grateful for it and wish that more of our neighbors would take part.

I’ve never been able to explain this apathy. Participation is in the single digits of eligible voters. Part of it is the process and the cold weather. But that can’t all of it.

In general elections, Iowans vote in healthy numbers relative to the rest of the country. Yet, come caucus night most of us stay home.

Even so, this apathy shouldn’t reflect on the people who do show up. And who spend their weekends, lunches and evenings during the runup to the caucuses doing what they consider their duty.

Yes, they’re human beings. They like the attention. But I also know folks who tell me (this is true) that they struggle to find time to do their Christmas shopping when the candidate visits get really thick. Some are that dedicated.

Anyway, the article makes some good points. We could always do better. And, who knows, we may not get many more chances.