Through the help of Jesse Lee over at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, I was able to line up an interview with DCCC chair Rahm Emanuel -- the subject of much discussion on this site. During the interview, which you can listen to here (a 14.1 megabyte .mp3) or read below, I raised a number of the issues discussed on this site, including his role in the Duckworth-Cegelis primary, his stance towards the Francine Busby campaign, congressional ethics an d his message to the progressive blogosphere.

Jonathan Singer: As recently as October, the NRCC held an $8.5 million advantage over your committee, the DCCC, a lead that has been all but erased. It’s down to about $1.5 million, as of the last filing deadline. Will you be able to keep this pace up through the election?

[Laughter]

Rahm Emanuel: I was just on the phone today, this afternoon, doing exactly. And it’s my goal, and it’s the goal of all the members, and most importantly it’s the goal of active Democratic supporters around the country to do that.

So we have an aggressive schedule. And I feel good about that. I can’t say what they’re going to do, but I know on all of the pieces we’ve got to do, Jonathan – direct mail, internet, events, members’ support – I feel very strong not only about the schedule we have but the response we’re getting.

Singer: There was an article in The Hill newspaper no doubt you saw on Wednesday, I believe it was, headline – the big headline in The Hill – “Dems prep for transition.” Things are looking good, generic congressional ballot numbers are good, fundraising numbers are good, recruitment is good. Is it a bit hasty for a headline like that?

Emanuel: Yes. Here’s what I always say. Look, on a macro level, this is turning out to be a big election, just like ’74, ’82, ’86, ’94, ’98 were. You got six months to go. Way too early. A lot can happen. Six months is a long time in politics.

Also, besides that’s macro, on the micro, they have – and I keep reminding people – we have a structural problem. The fix is in. We’re trying to pick the lock. Now is the mood of the country more powerful than the structural disadvantage Democrats face? Anybody that tells you they know the answer six months out doesn’t know politics. Did you know this morning that Porter Goss was resigning? No! Okay.

So a lot can happen in politics in six months. Fortunes can change. At this point, standing before you on this conversation on Friday, I’d rather be us than them. I can’t tell you how long that’s going to hold.

Singer: Let’s talk briefly about the Porter Goss situation and what could or couldn’t be surrounding it. We don’t want to connect too many dots before we know anything, really, in fact. But what we do know is that Dusty Foggo, the number three man at the CIA, has admitted to at least attending “poker parties,” I believe he’s called them, at the Watergate Hotel that were arranged by Brent Wilkes and others who have been implicated with Randy “Duke” Cunningham. The Wall Street Journal has brought up the specter of prostitution, perhaps. With this kind of lurid underpinning, how does that play into the election coming up?

Emanuel: It’s not a positive development – you can say that for sure. It doesn’t add to the environment… Look, when you have 60 plus percent, 64 percent, saying the country’s heading off in the wrong direction. This is only going to reinforce the fact that Washington needs a change, a good house cleaning, and a new set of priorities. That all plays to the advantage of the party out of power. But I’m not going to comment on those individuals till we know more, but let me say this: I know it’s unusual for any person to quit an administration on a Friday at 1:30 with no head’s up warning and without a replacement.

Singer: Fair enough. Let’s get to kind of a different angle. For all of your fundraising successes, your recruitment successes, the biggest complaint out of the progressive blogosphere relating to your tenure as DCCC chair has been your willingness to jump into internal primary battles, most notably supporting Tammy Duckworth over a grassroots’ favorite, Christine Cegelis. How would you respond to this criticism?

Emanuel: I think there are places where primaries are good. Illinois, in the 6th, they had a primary. But my view was, I also have a charge, as you know Jonathan, to make every seat competitive – or as many seats as I can competitive. And I know what my Republican counterpart said when Tammy won, which is this is going to be a very competitive seat now.

And so sometimes with being a leader at the DCCC comes criticism. That’s part of the job. That’s fine.

The voters in the end of the day in the 6th district made a decision. They made a decision to have Tammy be the nominee. In my view, it’s now a discussion about Tammy’s set of ideas about what it takes to move this country forward and the extreme ideas and policies that Senator Roskam has been voting on, like against stem cell research. He’s for banning books and movies like “It’s a Wonderful Life,” like “Romeo and Juliet” from schools. He opposed the assault weapons ban. This is a debate about Tammy Duckworth versus Peter Roskam. This is not about what happened in the past.

Singer: Maybe just on a larger scale, not just in that race, do you have any concern that… There has been a lot of rhetoric coming out of the progressive blogosphere. Do you have any concern that might turn into, say, progressive voters staying at home on election day?

Emanuel: If the progressive blogs saying… Look, let’s go back. What happened in 2004, John Kerry got 47 percent. Right?

Singer: In that district.

Emanuel: And Cegelis got what? Do you remember?

Singer: 44 percent.

Emanuel: So she ran below John Kerry in that district. Correct?

Singer: That’s correct, I think.

Emanuel: So okay. I’m into a general election against Peter Roskam. And that’s a suburban district. It’s a district that’s going to be won with independents, because there’s not enough Democrats to win it. Okay?

Singer: Okay. Let’s talk about another tough district, or at least a district that’s tougher than Illinois’ 6th, and that is California’s 50th congressional district where Francine Busby in April, last month I guess it was, scored about 44 percent of the vote, which was on par with what John Kerry received. She’s going up in one month’s time against Brian Bilbray, a former Congressman, to fill Randy “Duke” Cunningham’s seat. Is this a seat that can still be won? Did the moment pass on April 11?

Emanuel: No. It can still be won. You forgot to mention there’s a Libertarian and independent candidate.

Singer: That’s true, and the possibility of Eric Roach running, too.

Emanuel: Well, I doubt it happens given he met with the Vice President today. Well we’ll know in short order.

Singer: So what will you and the DCCC be doing between now and the next—

Emanuel: Well we’re spending. The DCCC can go on the air and you can check the buy. The independent expenditure side is up with an aggressive TV buy.

Singer: Are there other institutional supports that you’re giving to that district?

Emanuel: Yeah. Look, we spent already about a half of a million dollars down there. So I’m committed to be competitive and try to win wherever we can win. Okay?

Singer: Okay. Now another question in terms of strategizing. Do the Democrats need a Contract with America this year? Or an equivalent?

Emanuel: Yeah. They gotta tell people… I do think we’re ready to govern. I think we’re ready to hit the ground running, to put a minimum wage vote up, to direct negotiations for prescription drug prices up, to put the 9/11 Commission recommendations up, to reverse the $12.5 billion cuts in college aid up, to remove the $15 billion in subsidies to ExxonMobil and other oil and gas interests to alternative fuels and hybrids. And we are ready to govern and reverse course and return this government to the American people.

Singer: The New York Times this week had a story – a couple of days ago, I believe it was – that the road to retaking the House could come through the Northeast. A lot of competitive seats there. Can you talk about the focus on kind of a bread-and-butter region for the Democrats that perhaps—

Emanuel: Look, the Northeast and the Midwest are going to be central. It’s also where George Bush’s numbers are worse, where the direction for the right track/wrong track for the country is worse for the Republicans.

In New York you have four seats. In Connecticut you have three. In New Jersey you have one. In New Hampshire you have two. In Western Pennsylvania you have three – Eastern Pennsylvania, rather. And Vermont you have one. Right there is about 14 seats.

Then you go four to Ohio, three to Indiana, one in Illinois, one in Iowa, one in Minnesota, one in Wisconsin. That’s worse regions for George Bush, and those are where the concentration of seats are.

Singer: You’re running a couple of former Congressmen – at least a couple – in Indiana, Baron Hill, and also in Kentucky—

Emanuel: Ken Lucas.

Singer: –Ken Lucas. The track record for former Congressmen has been mixed at best. And these are districts. I think John Kerry got in the 30s in both of them. How confident are you that they will be able to reclaim their seats?

Emanuel: Look, right now Ken Lucas is up 48-38, Baron Hill is up 47-37. Two separate independent polls. That’s not true for anybody else, and you couldn’t be competitive in those seats without those guys. It’s that simple.

Singer: Let’s look towards the Southwest…

Emanuel: Let me say this. George Bush went in and did something for Sodrel against Baron Hill. Do you think he’s doing that that because Sodrel’s a lock? N. He’s doing it because we recruited the best candidate we could get. He’s also committed to do one for Geoff Davis against Ken Lucas. Is he doing that because Geoff Davis is a lock? No. It’s because we’ve got someone who can beat him.

Singer: Let’s talk about the Southwest. You’ve also recruited a couple of good candidates in Arizona, in New Mexico also. You have a couple of strong races, perhaps, in Nevada. Do you see a kind of Southwest tinge, as well, not just the Northeast and the Midwest?

Emanuel: Well it depends on how this Hispanic immigration issue – I mean not the Hispanic but the immigration issue plays out. But yes.

We’ve got one in Colorado, two in Nevada, maybe three in Arizona and one in New Mexico. And so this whole immigration debate is going to be a very important play there.

Singer: Let’s talk California while we’re on the Southwest. Out here, the district where I’m sitting right now, House Rules Committee chairman David Dreier really struggled in 2004. There are also a couple of seats that because of ethics issues – I’m talking Pombo and also Doolittle – could also come into play, in addition, of course, to the 50th district that we mentioned earlier. Are you looking at California at all or do you just think it’s too gerrymandered?

Emanuel: Sure. Well it is gerrymandered. You got to look at individual cases, you got to look at the mood of the country. Right now you’ve got Pombo and the Cunningham seat, and all those others are something I’m observing. And if the environment today holds, I’ll be looking at being more active than we are today.

Singer: We saw in – you can correct me if I’m wrong – but in your district 12 years ago a Congressman with severe ethical issues, legal issues, lost in a district that should have stayed Democrat. Do you foresee kind of in these strongly red districts someone with questions about…

Emanuel: You have the potential. Look, two of them have already been knocked out – DeLay and Cunningham. So it all depends, but individual ethics… Bob Ney has got problems, Don Sherwood—

Singer: Would you rather see Bob Ney, Don Sherwood, you were saying, run for reelection or drop out at this point?

Emanuel: Guess what? Nobody really gives a crap what Rahm wants. And so my view is I’m going to run campaigns in those districts to win. I don’t hope for a lot of things. I try to effect the things I can effect.

Singer: There was talk that there weren’t enough retirements this year, perhaps.

Emanuel: That’s a big issue.

Singer: Do you think that’s true?

Emanuel: 1994, do you remember how many retirements there were?

Singer: There were 28, I think, on the Democratic side.

Emanuel: No. in 1994, there were over 50 retirements. There are 19 now.*

Singer: So are there just not enough seats, do you feel?

Emanuel: I don’t know. Again, I prefer to have it more open, no doubt about it. I think we’re getting close to the end of the season of whether people decide to or not to run, so there’s nothing I can do about it. So I got to make do with the hand I’m dealt. Right?

Singer: That’s correct.

Emanuel: You get one more question otherwise I’m going to miss my family time.

Singer: I’ll make it good, then.

Emanuel: Sorry about that.

Singer: No, no worries. Is there any specific message that you’d like to send out to the progressive blogosphere at this point?

Emanuel: Yeah. This election is very simple. It’s about change versus the status quo, new priorities versus the same old policies, and whether you want a rubber-stamp Republican Congress or you want an independent Congress from the President. That’s what this election is about. Okay?

Singer: Terrific. Well thank you so much for your time.

Emanuel: Thanks, buddy. Congratulations on graduation.

Singer: Thank you very much.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

------------------

* - According to Congressional Quarterly, there were 28 Democratic House retirements in 1994 with more than 50 retirements in both chambers between both parties.

On Thursday and Friday of last week, I was fortunate enough to speak with Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold, a potential presidential candidate in 2008 -- the first of what we hope to be many MyDD interviews with serious potential candidates for the Democratic nomination over the next two years.

Senator Feingold and I touched on a number of issues during our conversation, which you can listen to here (an 11.6 megabyte .mp3) or read below. The topics included the CIA, censure, Iraq, 2006, 2008 and the Senator's message to the progressive blogosphere.

Jonathan Singer: General Michael Hayden, President Bush’s pick to head the CIA, seemed to be unaware of the term “probable cause” in the Fourth Amendment during an appearance at the National Press Club in January. Is he fit to serve as chief of the CIA?

Russell Feingold: Well, he certainly has certain technical experience qualifications. But yes, if it is in fact true that he does not even understand the role of the Fourth Amendment and probable cause, that sort of ties in with my leading concern about his nomination: that he was a participant in and party to this illegal wiretapping program, which anybody – lawyer or not – should have understood was against the law and required specific authorization from the so-called Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court.

So I wouldn’t base it simply on the basis of the possibility that he didn’t know what probable cause was, but I have got to hear some reasonable explanation why he would go forward with a program that he should have known to be illegal before I could support his nomination.

Singer: Although this is not an issue that should be based upon popular opinion but rather ascertainable facts, polling indicates that between 40 and 46 percent of Americans support your proposal for censure of the President on the grounds of the domestic spying program, his support of that program. So why have so few other Democrats in Congress signed on to your plan?

Feingold: Well it’s a sad day for America and the Democratic Party when our leaders and our top people can’t even stand up to obvious illegality and wrongdoing by this administration.

The administration has done a poor job of running this country and they’ve done, I think, an incompetent job in the fight against terrorism, but they have succeeded in one thing, and they’re very good at one thing, and that is at intimidating many Democrats into not speaking their mind and their beliefs and standing up to this attack on our constitution.

Perhaps the increased revelations of other practices that appear to be coming out will cause people to think again, that censure is a very modest approach and, in fact, if we don’t do something like that, what will anyone, including a Democrat leader, say they did to acknowledge the fact that the President broke the law. At this point, there appears to be no answer other than my modest proposal to censure the President and simply pass a resolution indicating we disapprove of this.

Singer: Moving on to the issue of Iraq, which is also tied into the national security debate, of course, there are a fair deal of Americans who have turned against the war at this point but still are skeptical of pulling out for reasons that if America pulls out people are unsure of what would be left in Iraq in the aftermath. What would you say to assuage, to lessen these concerns given your support of withdrawing American troops from Iraq?

Feingold: Well it’s certainly understandable that people would be edgy about this, especially if they haven’t had a chance to see the situation in Iraq directly as I have on two occasions.

Colin Powell said, “If you break it, you own it.” And I think a lot of Americans understandably feel responsibility to not just leave the Iraqis high and dry, and I agree with that. That’s not what I proposed. What I proposed was to have our military mission redeployed, to not have the 140,000 ground troops there. We could continue helping train the police and army, and we could have special operations forces in the regions, and continue to go after Al Qaeda and Al Zarqawi type operatives.

But the idea of having our ground troops there, I think, has a tendency to inflame the insurgents, put our people at risk, and it allows fanatics to say that the United States is trying to occupy Iraq.

When you’re there, you realize the situation is already almost completely chaotic, both in Baghdad and in many other parts of the country. So the notion that somehow our leaving would lead to a civil war doesn’t recognize the reality on the ground, which is that, in many ways, is what’s going on now, and that, I think, our presence there, do to no fault of our troops, tends to inflame rather than reduce the violence.

Singer: Let me ask you just a couple quick domestic policy questions because we’re a little limited on time this morning. The President and the Republican Party seem to be intent on shifting the debate towards judges right now. Social issues seem to be, at least in their minds, a strong point for them with their base, which they are losing. What do you think of this tactic? Is it good for America? And should the Senate agree to putting on some of the more conservative members on to the courts?

Feingold: It shouldn’t be based on ideology, it should be based on whether people are actually qualified and are people that belong in a lifetime appointment.

But yes, the switch in emphasis is an example of people having gone to the well too many times. They tried that last year and it doesn’t work. Because the American people, of course, care about their judiciary, but what is first on people’s minds is getting the fight on terrorism right and not having us caught in a no-win situation in Iraq. They also want us to spend real time on guaranteeing healthcare for Americans, alternative energy sources and job creation or not losing jobs.

So trying to completely switch the subject away from both the international and domestic issues that people care about most is a sign that they are desperate. And it’s not going to work, because the American people are getting ready to vote in the fall. They want people to lead this country who are not just competent – which they don’t have right now – but people who actually are committed to working on the problems that are of greatest concern to the American people.

So I think change is coming. I think it will be significant – as long as Democrats have the courage to stand up and talk about real solutions and not just try to run out the clock by the end of the year.

Singer: Well today, as you know, there are fewer Democratic Senators than any point since Herbert Hoover was President.

Feingold: I certainly know that.

Singer: Can you talk about some of the steps that you are taking to try to change the makeup of the United States Congress?

Feingold: As you know, I’ve been working extremely hard since I was fortunate enough to be reelected, both in Wisconsin and around the country, to try to elect Democrats – and especially progressive Democrats – so we can have the majority in both Houses and so that we can have a majority that will not make mistakes like the Senate did when it was in Democratic majority of helping to pass the Iraq resolution.

And I’ve done this all over the country. I was just in Austin, Texas for a guy named John Courage. I’ve been to Vail, Colorado on this. I’ve been to suburban Philadelphia, been to Alabama, Tennessee, just recently in Iowa working for several Congressional candidates there who could change the makeup of the House. So I am actively campaigning for people who will act differently, who will be standup Democrats, not just people who will come along and let the White House intimidate them.

Singer: Let’s move on to the topic of 2008. Would you like to see an America with your friend John McCain as President?

Feingold: Well I think America could do a lot worse. Obviously I am a Democrat, hoping a Democrat will be elected in 2008. But I have a very high regard for Senator McCain has been one of the better experiences of my professional life.

Singer: Talking about your potential candidacy, there has been a lot of talk about that. In 2004, at least four of the Democrats running for President had been divorced in the past, yet it was not a topic of discussion. However, during this campaign, people seem to be talking a lot about the fact that you yourself are divorced and that may be a hamper on your potential campaign. Do you think that’s a fair criticism?

Feingold: You know I’m just going to leave that up to people. If they really want to take that into account in who they want to be a President or officeholder, that’s their business. I think it’s completely irrelevant.

I’m certainly proud of my life and my personal life, as well. There have been some setbacks, but I think everybody has had those. And it has not affected doing my job nor do I think it would affect my doing another job. Up to people, though, how they want to treat that. It’s not for me to tell them how to think about something like that.

Singer: Now let’s talk about one of the things that put you on the national stage this year, and obviously that was bringing up the notion of censuring the President. While a great deal of Americans seem to support the measure, it also seems an even larger amount of Americans seem to think it was just a political ploy. Was it? Or do you have deep seated beliefs behind that?

Feingold: Well, obviously it wasn’t a political ploy, and I think most of the people asked in a poll like that don’t know who I am. Anybody who knows who I am knows that this is the kind of thing I have been doing throughout my career when I think something’s wrong, especially with lawbreaking or possible lawbreaking.

I was the only Democrat to vote to hear the evidence in the Clinton impeachment trial. I was one of the first two Democrats to call for an independent counsel when there were concerns about Democrat President Clinton’s campaign finance practices. So I think anybody who really knows me knows that not only was this not political but I would have done this if a Democrat President was making such outrageous assertions about executive power as George Bush is doing.

So I feel very good about where this is moving. Now, with these most recent revelations, I think a number of people are embarrassed that they were so critical of the censure resolution, because it’s obviously a very moderate thing to do. If we don’t at least censure the President, we’re just going to have a big hole on the history page when people say, “All of these members of Congress said the President broke the law with illegal wiretapping but they didn’t even criticize the President for it, they didn’t even pass a resolution about it.” So that’s what I’m trying to do, and I think every day it looks stronger and better to people as an appropriate step to take. So I’m extremely pleased with the way it’s going.

Singer: Final question before I let you go. If there’s one message you’d like to send to the progressive blogosphere, the many readers in the progressive blogosphere, what would that be?

Feingold: That those who are progressives and want the Democrats to stand up strongly for their positions are not only doing the right thing for America but they are also helping to move the Democratic Party in the right direction, politically. So it’s a win-win situation and they should not allow those who are the pundits and consultants in Washington to intimidate them out of their convictions because their convictions are the right convictions.

Singer: Terrific. Well thank you for your time.

Feingold: Thank you. I appreciate all the time.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

Yesterday morning, I had the opportunity to speak with Kweisi Mfume, one of two leading candidates for the Democratic Senatorial nomination in the state of Maryland (the other being Congressman Ben Cardin, with whom we spoke in February).

Mfume and I covered a range of topics, including the Iraq War, gas prices, poverty, and why he believes the blogosphere should get involved in the race. You can listen to the interview here (warning: a 26.9 .mp3 file) or read the rush transcript below.

Jonathan Singer: April is shaping up to be the bloodiest month for Americans in Iraq since November and there appears to be no end in sight to the violence. As Senator, what would you do to improve the situation in the country?

Kweisi Mfume: That country?

Singer: Yes, that’s correct.

Mfume: I don’t know if you can improve that situation. I think the slide towards civil war has accelerated at a breakneck pace, that the violence that we’ve seen escalating over the last ten months continues to increase. I just believe it’s an extremely volatile situation that may not have an American solution. The solution may be an Iraqi solution. I just don’t know at this point.

As someone who has been against this war since the first resolution was offered in the House, which kind of gave the President permission to do so or did give him permission to do so, I’ve just been opposed to all of the reasons why we are there. The American public was lied to deliberately, maliciously and unnecessarily about all these reasons that didn’t really exist. And once we got there – as the leaders of our military say, “liberated Baghdad” – and once we were able to apprehend Saddam Hussein, we were all told that in another year the Iraqi forces would be able to take care of themselves. We would provide armament and training, et cetera. Well three years have gone by and today is like it was that first day. There’s just no end in sight.

So I don’t know if the solution there is an American solution. It may be a United Nations solution to what’s going on. That’s why it’s been so regrettable that we have sort of ignored the United Nations in this entire process. That’s why we have the organization and that’s why the organization has credibility. We need international peacekeepers in an international role in Iraq, not just an American role.

Singer: Your former colleague Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania put forward a plan that would set a deadline for the withdrawal of troops. Do you support a deadline for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq?

Mfume: Absolutely. The deadline was this year, correct?

Singer: Yeah, I believe it was.

Mfume: The end of this year. I support that. I’ve been calling for that for the last two years.

My position is that if we can set a time for the Iraqis to ratify a constitution, if we can set a time certain for their elections, we ought to be able to set a time certain for this nation to start the process of removing troops from Iraq and doing a better job at really fighting terrorism worldwide by having the resources we need to do that.

Singer: Another one of your former colleagues, Charlie Rangel of New York, put forward a plan that would institute a draft to broaden the base upon which the war in Iraq and Afghanistan – and indeed the military as a whole – upon which it’s based. Would you support a plan like that?

Mfume: I don’t know enough about Charlie’s plan except to say that it was welcomed discussion and dialogue that we were not having over an issue that at its very roots spoke to trying to find a way to share a military burden, to spread it across all population groups.

I grew up in the Vietnam era and I know that it was very difficult no matter who you were to get away from the draft no matter how much money you had, unless you were very politically connected or unless you went to Canada.

In this instance what we’ve seen over the last many years since the end of the draft has been an increase in the efforts to recruit poor White, poor Black, poor Latino kids and even Korean kids into the military, recognizing that in many of those instances a lot of those young people really needed work and they really needed skills. So we have this all volunteer army that in many respects does not have as a part of its membership kids from very affluent homes, no matter what their color. That’s just not been the case.

So Charlie’s effort, as I saw it, was first of all to get the discussion going about the lopsided nature of our fighting forces with respect to their own economic circumstances. I don’t know beyond that how he planned to unroll it out because the hearings never got underway substantially enough to explain that.

So I don’t know. When I tell people that I’m not automatically against it, their response has been, “Well, we don’t need a draft.” And my response is, “Yeah, we don’t need war.” But we do need a discussion on this. And it’s got to be a discussion that brings in every segment of our society.

Singer: On a not entirely unrelated topic, gas prices are above $3 a gallon around the country and Exxon today just announced one of the largest quarterly profits in history. What steps should Congress and the White House take to ease the burden of high gas prices?

Mfume: Just a quick question – do you know what dollar amount they announced today?

Singer: I don’t have it off-hand. I think it was around 8 billion, maybe.

Mfume: Yeah, because the number was 10 at the end of the last quarter, which was the all-time record. So this is the second all-time record, and both of those are held by Exxon and both within a six month period, which is almost criminal in some respects.

There are a few things going here, and some of it is too little, too late, and that has been the White House reaction to all of this. Because we knew – those of us who are not even in government – that when Katrina knocked out oil producing capacity in the Gulf and that we were going into the winter months, everything was in place – kind of like a perfect storm – so that by the time we got to the spring again, gas prices would be out of control. Exxon had closed out that quarter with a $10 billion profit, and most people were clamoring for some sort of government intervention into what was going on with these obscene profits. And there was none. So where we are today to some of us was kind of predicted back in the month of September, and unfortunately it has come to pass.

I believe that, if I might just take a moment to talk about several things that are very important here, including government intervention, which as I said now is too little, too late with what the President and the Congress are talking about – not even what they’re doing, because they haven’t even done anything – but with their talking they’re a little late on some of this to provide relief.

Obviously we need an all-out consumer recognition and a consumer push on the notion of conservation because we’ve got to find a way in our own way, I think, to sort of deny the wholesale profits that are taking place by finding a way to cut back on what we’re doing as those who consume oil and gas.

The other thing I strongly believe is that unless we as a society and a nation get very serious about alternative fuel development, we will be held as prisoners in this whole oil and gas process for the rest of our lives. We talked about it. I’m old enough to remember when the first discussion started in 1974 in earnest when we were going through the first oil embargo and here we are now 32 years later and we still haven’t done anything. So there’s a real need now, if not an absolute mandate to rapidly get started on alternative fuel development and make that a national priority, bar none.

The other thing is that there was a real need in my opinion for the government to exercise its ability to influence OPEC, which has not been taking place. And I’m talking about since we’re providing much of the security for the oil-producing countries, in particular, we ought to be getting some sort of a discount rate per barrel on the oil that’s coming out of there that’s being consumed to a large part by this country. We don’t insist on that – I don’t know – and as a result we don’t get it. But at the very least, as the nation that’s providing a great deal of security for those countries, we ought to be at least trying to get that done.

And then on the domestic side, with respect to these companies, I think to some extent that there might even be collusion going on among companies. It’s not an accusation, it’s a thought. But I can’t help to think it because the way prices seem to be fixed and set and how these astronomical, obscene profits continue to take place quarter after quarter. And I think we need government regulation of oil companies in this country, bar none, so that we can get to the bottom of whether or not there’s something a) illegal taking place, in terms of price setting and price fixing, and b) whether or not there’s some sort of way to rein in the uncontrolled ability of these nations to profit on American consumers.

Singer: A few minutes ago you brought up Hurricane Katrina and the response to it. Around the time of the Hurricane or slightly thereafter, President Bush decried the poverty and said that serious action must be taken, yet we haven’t heard him say anything about it in the intervening months and it seems to have dropped off of his radar. Can you just talk a little bit about the response to Hurricane Katrina and what should be done today to improve some of the systematic issues that were brought to Americans’ minds through the story?

Mfume: The response to the Hurricane was a farce. Not only does the average person on the street know that, the entire world knows that. The comments of the world community were comments borne of disbelief at the lack of response by our government as international cameras and international television took those pictures around the world. People in other countries could not believe it. So you know it was difficult for Americans to accept that this response by this government was anything less than inadequate. It was totally insufficient.

The President’s proclamations and the President’s meanderings that took place formally and informally about why this was such a terrible tragedy and why we have to do something about it and no American should live like that were pontifications of the moment because very little has come out of that. We haven’t even corrected FEMA yet, let alone correct the problems that were contributing to the poverty.

We fought a War on Poverty in this country under President Johnson. Many Americans thought we were winning it. By the beginning of the 1970s, one out of five American children were living in poverty. Today in this country one out of five American children get up and go to bed living in poverty. So we’ve not come very far at all. And it is a situation that is not segmented by race; these are poor White kids, poor Black kids, poor Latinos. They live in every city, town, hamlet and barrio across this nation. They didn’t ask for this situation, but they’re growing up with odds against them in the wealthiest nation on the face of the earth.

They’re oh so many contributing factors that if there’s not just the government awareness but a government intervention to try to deal with those factors, we’ve already put in place a movement to produce a generation of teenagers, which these children will soon become, and then adults that will be at an extreme disadvantage, that will not be significantly a part of the work force, that will not contribute as they should as adults, that will require additional and special needs that are medical in nature and educational in nature, and we will have lost, really and not just rhetorically, an entire generation because of a situation manifest in poverty that we could be doing something about.

So I think it’s an abomination that this President would stand up in that moment when people were so vulnerable and looking for leadership and to talk about how this was such an American tragedy, and here we are six, seven months later and most people look at what has come out of that and cannot measure that because it has been so small.

Public schools in too many of these cities and towns and hamlets around the country remain overcrowded and ill-equipped. In some of those schools drugs are more available than textbooks. Too many of these kids are living in dilapidated housing where lead paint and lead dust, because of the construction of the housing, continue to infect them and ultimately their motor skills and their ability to think… and creates other sorts of biological issues within them.

We see violence taking place, occurring in a subculture, where kids, because of their poverty, find themselves a part of the subculture. And it becomes a need and a requirement just to provide everyday. It’s a subculture of drugs and guns. It affects all of us, either directly or indirectly. We don’t hear about any of that at the White House. We don’t hear any concern about that coming out of the United States Senate.

We reap what we sow. I don’t know how many times we have to live through a generation to understand that, but we will either pay for that now or as a society we will pay for it later.

Singer: Michael Steele has made some rather controversial remarks during the course of the campaign thus far. He seemed not to be concerned by the Governor’s appearance at a Whites-only golf club. He also likened stem-cell research to Nazi science. Is he serious enough to be Senator, let alone Lieutenant Governor?

Mfume: I think his candidacy is serious. I know that there are a couple of factors that exist in this state that don’t necessarily get national attention that could be the difference in whether or not he happens to get elected.

He will obviously get the nomination of his party. His electability hinges on a couple things, some of which have nothing to do with his position on those issues and everything to do with the fact that the Democratic Party in the state of Maryland has been extremely slow in terms of providing opportunities for African-Americans and Latinos in this state to run for and to be a part of statewide office.

In fact, I think Maryland was established going back to 1790 or something, and in that time we’ve never had – never – not just a Black or Latino elected to statewide office, we’ve never had one nominated. And the only woman in that entire period of time was Barbara Mikulski. And that’s a shame and an outrage when you consider that 40 percent of the Democratic Party in Maryland are Black voters and a growing amount are Latino voters. In a progressive state that has a two to one Democratic registration it’s almost unheard of. And so people are getting tired of business as usual, and when I say people, I’m talking specifically about the base here of the Democratic Party.

And that anger poured out four years ago when there was a gubernatorial election and when many people were hoping that for the first time the Democratic Party would nominate a Black or Latino person as Lieutenant Governor – not nominate, when the nominee would pick someone that way and the party would rally behind that person. Not only did that not happen, nobody was ever on that short list from either of those racial or ethnic groups. Nobody was talked to in the community. In fact, Black and Latino leaders across the state had to simply wait until the press conference to find out who that person was who had been chosen. And when they found out, it was a guy named Lawson who had come out of the military who hadn’t lived in the state that long who 30 days prior had been a Republican.

So it was a huge slap on the face, and what happened was on election day there was a lot of crossover voting, Black Democrats voting for this Republican ticket that included a Black Lieutenant Governor nominee – not for the first time; this was the third time Republicans had done this – and a lot of other Black and Latino voters stayed home. So Maryland got for the first time in 40 years its first Republican Governor and Lieutenant Governor.

I’m saying I think that a lot of that has manifesting itself around the state today given the fact that the party never embraced my candidacy – first of all they never encouraged it – but they never embraced it afterwards and have done a lot of things to get me out of the race. When I say the party, I don’t mean the formal party – not the director of the Maryland state party, but these are, in my opinion, the old party bosses that still want to control things.

But more than that, Michael Steele – who shows up in Black churches and at events in the larger Black community, unlike some of his predecessors on the Republican side and has an ability to talk and work with minority business people and others – has an appeal not because of his issues but because to some of those persons he represents hope and a breakthrough that quite frankly ought to belong to the Democratic Party. We’ve given up the high road as a party on this whole issue of inclusion and diversity to Republicans, and it’s in many respects style over substance.

I don’t know. I just know that looking at this and trying to answer your question as directly and bluntly as I can, I can only say his positions on issues not withstanding, we need to take his candidacy extremely serious in this state for all of the reasons I’ve enunciated and for others I might not be able to think of right now. Because if we don’t, as we did four years ago, we could get into a situation where again the Democratic Party suffers a great loss in a state that has a two to one Democratic registration, large Black and Latino population, and considers itself “progressive.”

Singer: Just a couple more questions. As a result of a Washington Post article that ran a year ago tomorrow that detailed some accusations of favoritism at the NAACP. Some may have qualms about your candidacy. Are these concerns well founded? What would you like to say to these people?

Mfume: I don’t think that they’re well founded concerns. There was an accusation of favoritism by a former employee who no longer worked at the association who said she heard that in order to get ahead at the association that you had to have some special kind of relationship with me, that I had to like you. That’s about as far from the truth as you can get because it ignores the fact that more women had been promoted under my leadership at the NAACP than any time in its 90-year history. And those women were promoted because of their brains, not their bodies. They were promoted because they deserved it. In many instances, they’ve gone on not only there but elsewhere to continue to shine and outshine many of their male counterparts because they have the skills and the training in their respective areas and the tenacity to hold on to make a real difference.

The other interesting thing about the article was that there was not one person, past or present at the NAACP or having used to be at the NAACP to step forward and corroborate that at all. It was just this one former employee who, to I assume some extent, was disgruntled that she didn’t make enough money and who didn’t file a formal complaint – never filed a grievance – but after her employment sent a letter to the board with that accusation.

I’m not trying to say that people should not look at that. I think they need to look at everything regarding candidates. But I think it’s unfair to give that any more credence than it deserves. It is what it is and what it was. And because it was never corroborated, because it was the accusation of one former employee, we have to keep that in perspective.

And let me tell you why. This is not a situation where, like with Arnold Schwarzenegger, there were all these separate people coming forward in separate towns making accusations that he groped me and fondled me and embarrassed me. That was not the case at all. But there was a real need to try to take a small story and to make it into a large story and to drag it out for a long time because there was a real need by some people to get me out of the race and to discredit my candidacy any way they could. And I assume that most of them thought that a result of that I would get out. But I’m made of a different kind of substance. I realize that when people are trying to smear you with stuff that in many respects doesn’t stick that they will hope and pray that you break.

What’s happened since then is that a lot of people got angry when they realized this for what it was and I think got angry not at any one specific person, because we don’t know how this whole thing was developed, carried out in the press for such a long time when it was, in the minds of some people, a very small story that people were trying to make into a larger one.

But I think people got angry about the fact that here’s somebody that’s done everything that the party has asked him to do in 25 years and even before there was any story, for 46 days I was the only candidate in the race and the party never once said, “We think we could support this individual.” So I think people were probably more concerned about that aspect of it.

But a race is what it is. A second big thing was that after that let’s find an effort to get all the endorsements for the candidate of our choice and the candidate of choice in this instance was Congressman Cardin, who the Democratic Party just opened up the floodgates here. Every endorsement you could possibly get he got. Whether he tried or not he got them. I’m not saying he didn’t deserve them, I’m just saying it’s interesting how the party rallied to do that.

And then the third thing that happened after that was an effort to now let’s get all of the money we can get. My opponent has gotten and raised, to his credit, a great deal of money. The difference between us is that I don’t take special interest money from pharmaceuticals and from oil and gas companies. I just have a set of principles that says if I’m going to run this race, I’m going to try to do this the right way from a populist position and in a principled manner so I’m not bought and sold and I don’t belong to anybody other than the people of this state who go out and vote.

So there are a lot of differences there and long story short, 14 months later I’m still here and I’m still going around the state every day, seven days a week, reaching out to people of all colors of all communities from all backgrounds and walks of life. And given all of that, I’m neck-and-neck in the polls in every poll we’ve seen produced with my chief opponent.

So I think that people here in the state have said, “We’re going to think for ourselves. We’re going to make our own minds up. We want a campaign, not a coronation. And we want an opportunity to have candidates before us so we can question them and understand not only their principles, but also their ideals, their beliefs and their vision for the future.”

Singer: Last question. Is there anything you’d like to say specifically to members of the liberal/progressive blogosphere to get them more involved in your campaign?

Mfume: I’d like them to understand that I’m an unapologetic progressive. I don’t apologize for my views. I’m very proud the fact that I don’t support the PATRIOT Act, that I’m in support of stem-cell research, that I’m a 100 percent pro-union candidate – have been all my life – that this campaign is a pro-privacy campaign to get the government out of illegal wiretaps and out of our medical records and out of our banking records, that I’m the candidate that stands up over and over again that believes that it’s an abomination and a sin for a half million Americans to lose their pensions because a couple of corporations were playing slick games and getting out of a commitment they made to workers all along, and that I’m the candidate that has been opposed to this war all along, who finds it outrageous that poverty lives among us at the rate it does and that 46 million people have no health insurance, which is the population of 24 states.

And I think that in order for Democrats to win, we really have to stand for something and we have to say to people, “These are our core beliefs.” Because otherwise we’re kind of like Republicans light. If I want a beer, I just get a beer, if I want something light, I get a Bud Light. But if I want something different, it’s because I know that there really is a difference. And Democrats, in order to win, have to be different, have to, I think, stand for something, have to be able to talk in plain English to everyday people, and have to be prepared to fight again for the heart and soul of our nation.

Singer: Well, thank you so much for your time and good luck in your campaign.

Mfume: Thank you, Mr. Singer. I appreciate the opportunity, too.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

This morning, spoke with former Secretary of the Navy James Webb, a candidate for the Democratic senatorial nomination in the commonwealth of Virginia (we of course would also welcome a conversation with the other leading Democrat in the race, Harris Miller).

Webb and I spoke about a number of topics, including the War in Iraq, the use of civilian contractors, why Webb -- who served under Ronald Reagan -- is running as a Democrat, and why he believes the blogosphere should get involved in the race. You can listen to the interview here (warning: a 19.0 megabyte mp3) or read the rush transcript below.

Jonathan Singer: Is President Bush, and perhaps more importantly the Republican Senate, doing enough to protect America’s national security today?

James Webb: Well I think that from 9/11 forward, they’ve made fundamental mistakes that not only have not increased our security but have caused us to be intensely disliked around the world, unnecessarily.

If you go back to after 9/11, when President Bush stood up and said “in the war against international terrorism, you’re either with us or against us,” I think a lot of people agreed with that, but when they started going after Iraq, it was a totally thing. And I think that they squandered an historic opportunity to really galvanize most of the responsible people around the world so that we could focus on the real problems. By going into Iraq, they created hostility, insulted countries that had been our allies for a long time – unnecessarily insulted them – and created a lot more potential dislike and terrorist incidences than if they’d handled it the other way.

Singer: Now let’s move forward to a hypothetical January 2007. You’ve just been sworn is as George Allen’s replacement in the United States Senate. How does this change the Senate’s outlook towards Iraq?

Webb: Not only myself, but I think what we really need in the Congress is people who are willing to lead affirmatively, to come up with solutions, and to stand up to the executive overreach. Since 9/11, particularly, we’ve seen abuses of Presidential authority that are almost historic in their dimensions. We can take one issue or another issue, but when you connect the boxes on them, one of the strongest conclusions you have to reach is that the Congress is not standing up to the administration, to the Presidential overreach.

And it’s not simply one-party rule; it’s the Congress itself having lost its notion of its own prerogatives. I was a committee counsel in the Congress for four years – 1977 to 1981 – when the Democratic Party was in the White House and controlled the Congress, but at that time, the people who were in the Congress had a real sense of history and of their constitutional prerogatives, and they did not defer to the administration simply because they were in the same party. One of the four themes that I’m running on is the notion that Congress has to reassert itself, and you would see me doing that.

Singer: Let me come at kind of come at this from a different angle. President Bush yesterday insinuated that we, America, will be in Iraq at least through the end of his administration and it will be up to a future President to decide whether to stay in or out. Is that the right place to be, or does the Senate need to put pressure on President Bush to begin extricating the troops from Iraq?

Webb: This is something that I warned about well before we went into Iraq. I think I wrote the first article in a major newspaper warning that this was going to happen. In September of 2002, I wrote a piece, an editorial, in The Washington Post basically saying that the issue was not Weapons of Mass Destruction, the issue was that if we became an occupying force there that our people would become terrorist targets, and the people in the administration who were pushing for the War in Iraq deliberately did not have an exit strategy. I think we’re seeing that even more clearly, just in the last couple of weeks when the administration releases this report that indicates that they want to continue a policy of preventive war, rather than preventive attacks – I’m going to get to that in a minute – and also what he said yesterday about future Presidents, I think he said it in the plural, would be responsible for deciding when we leave Iraq.

This administration has never said specifically that we have no long term aspirations for occupying Iraq, and I think that they have to say that clearly, and I will be calling on them to say that clearly during this campaign.

This is not simply an issue of Presidential power, it’s an issue of the nation’s commitment, so Congress is at least an equal player, in terms of deciding how long we should be there.

Singer: Let me ask you one final military/foreign affairs related question before we move on to some domestic and political issues. At the time you were Navy Secretary, correct me if I’m wrong, the United States military relied significantly less on high-paid contractors, private corporations, to meet its infrastructure needs, both during war and during peace. How has this change affected the military, and is it something you’d like to see continued or the trend reversed?

Webb: That’s a really good question. It’s something that people don’t really focus on. I did a lot of manpower work when I was younger, both before I got to the Pentagon, when I was in the Congress, and then in the Pentagon before I became Secretary of the Navy.

When we say we have 135,000 American military people in Iraq right now, if you take a look at how much of the support, combat service support, private security functions are being done by these so-called “civilians” – they’re quasi-military units – you would probably have to say that in reality we have the equivalent of 200,000 American military people in Iraq.

One of the reasons that this is being done is because there are in-strength limitations on the services. In other words, you can’t go over in the Congress and fund more than a certain number of people in the Army, in the Marine Corps, etc. So these functions that are basically military functions and in many cases are being done by former military people, have to come from outside of the in-strength numbers.

This is not healthy, first of all because the country doesn’t understand the enormity of the commitment, second of all because it’s extremely costly. I’ll give you one example. You can take a recon marine, a marine who’s in a reconnaissance battalion, who probably makes at the most $20,000 a year, and they’ve been able to walk out of that and go over and make $180,000 a year in some cases working for these contractors. Well that’s still being paid by the American taxpayer in the end. And then the third reason that it’s not a good policy is that there really are no legal controls on these people. When these people shoot a civilian in Iraq or conduct themselves in a way where they should be subjected to criminal sanctions or disciplinary action, who does it? I’ve asked people involved if civilian contractors have ever been disciplined, and I’m still looking for an example as to when they have. And that has a negative impact in places where they impact on people that they’re around. It’s a very troubling phenomenon and it’s being driven by artificial budget numbers where we’re not being honest about the extent of our commitment.

Singer: Let’s move to some domestic issues. It seems to me that a great number of progressives like what they’re hearing from you on kind of the international issues and the War in Iraq, but looking specifically at domestic issues, until recently you were a registered Republican and you served in a Republican administration. What would you say to these activists who are also concerned that you will become another Zell Miller, in other words a Republican in Democratic clothing?

Webb: Well I’ve never been a registered Republican.

Singer: Sorry about that.

Webb: I’ve certainly worked with Republicans. I think that serving in the Reagan administration with the issues I was working is something I have no regrets. In fact I’m very proud of having worked with the President who basically brought an end to the Cold War and rehabilitated the dignity of the military, and those were the issues I was working on.

I was essentially a Democrat – I wasn’t active, I’ve never run for office at all – but I was essentially a Democrat until 1976. Having come back from Vietnam and been wounded and seeing the way that the Democratic Party was sort of excluding, in many cases, the people who had served there, and the positions that it had taken on the war and on amnesty for draft evaders and that sort of thing, I was like a lot of people who just felt like they did not want people with our background in the Democratic Party and that the party’s positions on national security at that time were pretty weak, and the Republican Party was strong.

But again, like a lot of people, I was never comfortable with the Republican Party’s positions on social issues, particularly. And when you look at what’s happened since 9/11, the Republican Party has lost its moral authority also on national security issues. So they’re wrong on national security, they have always been too extreme on social issues, they have lost the bubble it terms of fiscal issues – it’s kind of amazing that it was the Democratic Party that was opposing extending the debt last week – and they have engaged in abuses of Presidential authority, so there’s just no room over there for a lot of people who went over there on the national security issues.

If people are wondering what I would be like, if they’re wondering am I really a Democrat, whatever that means, I think I’ve been pretty clear on how I feel on issues. And every bit as important to me, in terms of why I’m doing this, is the notion of social unfairness in this country, and that’s economic unfairness – we need to get back to more representation for the people at the bottom, working people at the bottom – and also on issues of social justice. Those are issues that are very important to me.

Singer: My apologies for calling you a registered Republican.

[Laughter]

Webb: That’s okay. There’s no registration in Virginia either way.

Singer: A couple of issue questions. Where do you stand on a woman’s right to choose? Or perhaps more importantly, you’re in the Senate starting in January 2007 in this hypothetical, and President Bush nominates someone who overtly or even hints at a pledge to overturn Roe v. Wade, do you vote yay or nay on the Senate floor?

Webb: I don’t believe in answering hypotheticals, because they can get very complicated, but I do support Roe v. Wade.

Singer: Okay. [The] President and the Republican Congress passed the Medicare prescription drug bill, which by almost any means or measures has been a failure of implementation and design. If you’re sent to the United States Senate, would you like to see changes made to it, or do you think it really just needs to be better implemented?

Webb: As someone who spent four years as a committee counsel, it would not be smart for me to take a position on a bill I have not read very carefully, but in general, I think we have to move toward the idea that every American deserves to have medical care. And it’s not simply people on the very bottom who are having a problem here, it’s a lot of working people aren’t able to afford medical insurance and this sort of thing. It’s probably the most complicated… We’ve seen a number of studies that have come back with nothing. It’s so complicated that I can’t sit here and give you a formula, but it’s something that I do care a lot about.

Singer: You brought up the federal deficit, the federal debt more specifically. If the Senate brings up tax measures, would you, let’s say, be in favor of cutting taxes, or would you not want to deal with taxes one way or another, or would you in fact be willing to raise taxes, perhaps on the 1 or 2 percent?

Webb: I think the difficulty we have right now is you can’t spend $400 billion on a war and potentially $2 trillion on a war and say that you’re going to keep stimulating the economy with the tax cuts that are now in place.

Where the tax cuts are benefiting a broad range of people, and one example that immediately comes to my mind is the capital gains tax, which benefits a lot of people, when you’re selling your home, etc., I would be inclined to support that. When they benefit a smaller number of people – you know, for instance, the tax cuts that come up for renewal in ’08 – I would want to take a very hard to look at that.

You can’t… someone, as my friend Mark Shields, I think it was, said, this is the first war we’ve ever fought where you haven’t drafted anyone and you haven’t raised taxes, so who’s really paying here. Somehow we’ve got to confront the American people with the expense of this adventure and what we’re doing.

Singer: One final issues question before we get to politics. Are you content with the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy?

Webb: I favor civil unions, but I think, in terms of the military, that that’s a policy that’s working.

Singer: Why you and not Harris Miller for the Democratic nomination for the Senate?

Webb: People are going to have to make up their own minds about that. I know what I’m bringing, I know what I want to do. The reason I’m doing this is because I don’t see leaders. I think that’s one thing I’ve been able to do in my life is think hard and creatively about issues and take stands and fight.

Singer: Is there something you could boil it down to for people who are less familiar with your candidacy and his candidacy?

Webb: I haven’t really paid that much attention to Harris Miller’s candidacy. We’re running two different kinds of campaigns. I’m very specific on four themes we’re running on, and the overarching reason I’m running is we need real leaders. We need positive, affirmative leaders who aren’t afraid to take positions, and I’ve always done that in everything that I’ve done.

Singer: Last question. Is there anything you’d like to say specifically to members of the progressive blogosphere to get them more involved in your campaign?

Webb: I have really been gratified by the encouragement and the support I have gotten from the blogs, from the blogosphere, for the most part. The great worry that I have, if you want to think about this, you’ve probably already heard it, is that Karl Rove has already said that one of the two major strategies that they are going to use this year is to get into the blogs, to work the blogs hard, and the danger on the blogs is that somebody like myself can never defend themselves from false statements. There’s no accountability on the blogs. I think that’s one of the reasons that Karl Rove wants to use them. They can make accusations, charges, etc. that you can’t hold the person accountable and you spend the rest of your life trying to defend yourself.

To this point, I think there’s been – when this has happened – there’s been really good energy from people in the blogs that actually throw the actual facts back out, and I’ll never be able to do that.

The only thing I can say is I’m trying to do this from the bottom up. I’m trying to run a campaign where I will have intellectual independence, to be able to keep intellectual independence if I’m elected. Everybody else has a lobbyist in Washington, how about the average person?

Singer: Terrific. Well good luck in your campaign and thanks for joining me this morning.

Webb: Thank you.

On Tuesday afternoon, I had the honor of speaking with the last Democratic Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Thomas Foley of Washington, who served in the position from 1989 to 1995. Before ascending to the post following the resignation of then-Speaker Jim Wright of Texas, Foley served in the Democratic leadership in the House beginning in 1981 and was first elected to the chamber from the Spokane area in 1964.

Foley and I covered a range of issues during our conversation, including how 2006 compares to 1994, Democratic chances of retaking the House this fall, the lack of bipartisan comity on the Hill and the state of the Democratic Party. You can listen to the interview here (warning: an 20.1 megabyte mp3) or read the rush transcript below.

Jonathan Singer: You served in the leadership of the House during some fairly unprecedented times, including the resignation of the Speaker of the House, the indictment of the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and of course the House banking scandal as well. How does the situation today compare?

Tom Foley: Well, I think, first of all, referring to the House banking scandal, as it’s often called, this was, as a recent commentator said, a scandal without a crime. What happened is that Members of Congress were allowed by the bank officials to overdraw their accounts and their imbalances or negative balances were covered by the positive balances of other Members, so there was nothing more than happens today when anyone opens up a commercial bank account, almost always one of the things that’s offered is coverage for overdrafts.

In the House case, for many years there was a small charge made for that, as there is today when people set up a commercial checking account. And then when there was the case in the 1970s, interest rates went very high, without notifying anyone in the leadership, the Sergeant at Arms, who ran the bank, simply dropped making those charges. And the General Accounting Office – now the General Accountability Office – criticized it, told me about it, I told the Republican leader about it, and we instructed the bank officials to correct it. They didn’t do that, against orders, and six months later the matter became public and became a rather large and celebrated case, which didn’t involve anything in the way of criminal activity and very little else, except a kind of minor perk that Members of Congress received to overdraft their accounts. But in any case, it led to the bank’s closure and the replacement of the Sergeant at Arms.

Singer: When you compare it to, say, the indictment of the House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the indictment of Randy “Duke” Cunningham, and Jack Abramoff, etc., how does the situation back then compare to today?

Foley: Well I think, as far as the bank matter is concerned, there is no comparison at all. No one was charged with any offense, there was no government money lost, there was no abuse of any particular Congressional activity, no legislation was effected. So it became a kind of a celebrated political issue, but it wasn’t really a scandal in the sense of criminal activity, abuse of office, loss of government funds, or any kind of special advantage that any outside group received for any support or otherwise.

There has to be a distinction, of course, between the Tom DeLay matter, which is still in process – Congressman DeLay has resigned his Majority Leadership position, but the case is still pending – and the case of Randy “Duke” Cunningham. He has pled guilty to serious offenses involving $2.4 million of bribes and favors received. So that matter has been resolved, in the sense that his guilt has been admitted.

The Abramoff matter involves obviously his pleading guilty to offenses and Michael Scanlon, his associate, doing so, and the possibility that Members of Congress and members of the staff of Congress might be indicted. All of those that have been publicly discussed are Republican Members, but the matter is still pending.

Singer: Political ramification-wise, the latest poll from CBS News puts the American public’s approval of Congress below what it was in early 1994. Do you foresee the possibility that 2006 will yield similar results as 1994, or 1964, ’74 or ’82, for that matter?

Foley: It’s possible. One doesn’t know. I think one of the differences between 1994 and the present is that in the ensuing years, state legislatures have redistricted the Congress, and, for the most part, there has been a heavy tendency towards protecting incumbency districts. In other words, Members of Congress in both parties have had their districts changed in the favor. In a sense, that makes their reelection more likely.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, there are more so-called “red” districts as a result than there are “blue” districts. In addition to being the minority party, the Democrats have structurally fewer seats than the Republicans of these very, very strong incumbent-supporting districts. It is said that fewer than 10 percent – more like 7 or 8 percent – of the House seats every election cycle are in serious question. Open seats, so to speak, where there is a chance of the incumbent being defeated. In almost all other districts, Republican and Democrat, the likelihood of the incumbent being reelected is very strong.

But again, from the standpoint of the Democrats, there are more of the so-called strong Republican seats than strong Democratic seats. And so I think in the opinion of many political observers, it will take a tsunami, political tsunami of a kind to overturn that Republican advantage, in addition to the majority structural Republican advantage.

We’ll see. That tsunami might develop, maybe as a result of a combination of factors, including the unfolding Abramoff matter. It is possible that the low opinion of the public for Congress will affect both parties, but more specifically the majority party, the Republican Party, as the circumstances of 1994 affected the Democrats.

Singer: During the period of Democratic control of Congress and the White House, there was a degree of oversight. You did this when Clinton was President and you were Speaker. The Truman Committee during World War II also stands out as a good example. Do you believe the Republican Congress has been thoroughly enough investigating and conducting oversight during this Bush presidency?

Foley: I think even Republican Members have said that in many cases they think the Republican majority has failed to carry on a very vigorous oversight function. And I think this is one of the key responsibilities of the Congress – both Houses of the Congress – whatever the administration is, whether it’s of the same party as the Congress or the branch of Congress involved or not.

There has been a steady and consistent complaint – not just from Democrats, but from Republicans, as well – that the Congress has been fairly lax in undertaking serious review of administration activities. A recent exception to that has been the investigation of the administration’s response to the Katrina disaster in the Gulf states and in New Orleans, and the undertaking recently of Senator Specter in the Senate to look at the so-called special intelligence program involving the National Security Agency’s review of data involving allegedly telecommunications from outside the United States to Americans that might theoretically involve terrorists.

Singer: Correct me if I’m wrong, but during your tenure as Speaker, relations with House GOP leader Bob Michel were at least somewhat congenial. Today it seems that bipartisan relations on Capitol Hill are almost non-existent. How did things deteriorate to this point, and can the situation be salvaged?

Foley: That’s a very interesting question. I think it’s certainly true that when I was Speaker and Bob Michel was Republican leader, the relations were excellent. We met three or four times a week, Bob and I did, half the time in my office, half the time in his. Our staffs met daily. There was full consultation on the schedule. There was an opportunity for discussion of problems or issues that arose in real time, so that when there were things that were troubling the Republicans or our side, we could frankly discuss them with the leadership on the other side of the aisle.

And I think almost everybody involved at that time – Republicans or Democrats – will attest to the fact that civility has declined, cooperation has diminished, tensions have risen and irritability has grown apace. So that in the opinion of most Members who have served relatively long terms of service and cover both of these periods, there’s not question in the minds of almost all of them that, regardless of what the estimate is of what has brought this condition into existence, that it is the worst time in modern Congressional history.

Singer: Do you think it could go back at all?

Foley: Well, I hope it can improve. A couple of things that have happened recently: two Members of the Congress, one Democrat and one Republican, have organized a group inside the House called Center Aisle, which both Bob Michel and I have endorsed. One of these Members, a Democrat – the other a Republican – found that they could get along when they were in the gymnasium, the House gym, but when they got to the floor, the tensions rose and the bitterness between the two parties was sort of the overriding reality. So they’re trying to get Democrats and Republicans and others to come together in efforts to find ways to restore civility, to restore the ability to disagree and to debate and to dispute issues without making relations personal and the atmosphere poisonous.

I think the other thing that could happen and will be important to watch is if there is a change of leadership, if the Democrats do come back into majority in the House or in the Senate or in both, it will be important for the Democrats, I think, to take a course of establishing respect for rules and regular order that do not simply follow in the pattern of recent years, sort of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth running of the House or the Senate, repeating the offenses that Democrats feel they have suffered under Republican majority back again on Republicans when they become, if they do become a minority.

I think the obligation of whoever is in the majority is not to diminish the right of the majority to rule – that’s part of the system, particularly in the House – but to rule with due respect for the rights of the minority, giving them an opportunity to participate in debate, giving fairer opportunity to examine the legislation when it’s reported from the committee, giving notice of changes that the majority intends to enact by rule or to provide for full participation in conference committees.

There is a kind of urban myth abroad that the Republicans are only doing today, in running the House, what the Democrats did to the minority Republicans in the period of the 40 years that ended in 1994. Well, I wouldn’t say that the Democratic majority had never sinned or never overreached, because I think occasionally we did. I don’t think there’s any comparison, again, between that time and the present time, when, again, by almost any index, the Republican majority has been extremely muscular and aggressive, not only in passing the programs that they undertake to pass, but to do so with a minimum participation and opportunity for the Democratic minority to take part in the deliberations.

Singer: I’d just like to ask you to address a couple specific things that Republicans have done in recent Congresses, one being holding a longer than a three hour vote on the Medicare prescription drug plan. I know that you as Speaker kind of came back from that policy; Speaker Wright had extended some votes, but you tried to do less of that. And also the recent budget reconciliation bill in which the House passed a different version than the Senate knowingly and sent it to the President anyway. I wonder if you could just address those two.

Foley: I think in the first one, there was an instance during the time that Jim Wright was Speaker and I was Majority Leader where one Member of Congress from Texas had promised Jim Wright, as Speaker, that he would vote for a budget bill, and then he left the chamber. Jim Chapman was his name. The Speaker put me in the chair, asked me to take the chair and he went to find Mr. Chapman. And we kept the vote open for I would say 20 minutes beyond what would be the normal time. One should know that there is no, or was not then, any maximum time that a House vote could last. It could not last less than – less than – 15 minutes, but it was typical that it would last maybe 20 or 25 minutes, when straggler Members would come from both parties to vote on the floor. But after all the latecomers had arrived, the vote was announced.

In this case, the case that I am talking about, we kept the vote open for 15 or 20 minutes after the last Member had been coming to the floor, and I think that was a mistake, frankly. It was within the rules, but it was against the regular order. And when Mr. Chapman changed his vote and the bill passed by one vote, the Republican side was enormously angry and upset, and Dick Cheney, the then-Republican Whip, came across the floor and told me this was the worst abuse of power he had ever seen in the House.

Now compared to that, Speaker Hastert kept the vote open on the prescription drug bill for over three hours, while the Secretary of HHS was brought to the floor to help persuade Members to vote for it, and a number of other things took place that finally led to the passage. But compared to 20 minutes, three hours was a vast extension of that, and it’s a bad practice in any event. Even though it can be sometimes argued that it’s within the technical meaning of the rules, particularly if a special rule is passed to accommodate it, it’s still against the traditions of the House, it leads to a feeling of helplessness on the part of the minority, it leads to a feeling of abuse of power by the majority, and commentators from every spectrum of political viewpoint have criticized it.

I think what has happened is that a series of these things has led to a feeling of great anger and frustration on the part of the minority, and it’s one of the things that I think has to change if we’re going to have a restoration of civility and acceptance and harmony in the House.

Singer: How about Speaker Hastert signing off on a bill that he knew was not the same as the Senate bill?

Foley: Well I don’t know the specifics of that, but I think there has generally been a sense that while it’s I think understandable and acceptable for the majority party in the House to work the will of the majority, if you do so at the expense of traditions of regular order, of traditional views of the rules, traditional rules of comity, exercising the muscular or even overpowering force of the majority and diminishing the rights and participation of the minority, it leads to enormous tensions and bad feelings and anger. And I think it’s one of the unfortunate circumstances that exists today.

I don’t criticize former Speaker because I’m a former Speaker and I know the problems that the Speaker has, somewhat like the President, having to be the Speaker of the whole House and at the same time the leader of his own party. But I don’t think there’s any question that people who have watched the House over many, many years would say today that relations between the two parties are at the lowest ebb in their memory.

A new book is about to be published, I think a very good one, which is called The Broken Branch, and it’s a book authored by Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein, who are the two most celebrated and objective scholars of the Congress. And in that book they examine all of these questions and suggest a way that we might step back from this continuing deterioration of both Congressional relations internally and public esteem for the Congress.

Singer: Could I ask you just one last question?

Foley: Sure.

Singer: Are you content with the direction of the Democratic Party today?

Foley: Well, I think the Democratic Party is obviously is… Will Rogers said famously it’s not all together the most organized party in the world. We’re now a party in opposition in the House and the Senate. But I think the party has opportunities, both in Congressional elections this fall and the coming Presidential elections, to regain principal responsibility for the conduct of the American government. And I think that’s a very exciting opportunity.

Obviously we have choices to make, in terms of 2008, in terms of the ticket. The party came very, very close in the last election. Although the popular vote was substantial for the President, a shift of 100,000 votes in Ohio would have changed the outcome.

So I think we still have two vital parties. I proud to be a Democrat. I believe the Democratic vision for the country is the one that offers the greatest hope for Americans in all conditions and I think the greatest hope for American leadership abroad. But we have an obligation to, I think, try to express more clearly and more effectively to the American people our different views on where the country should go and how the national future should be sod. So I’m going to stay as involved as I can in that effort.

Singer: Well, I just want to sincerely thank you for your time. It really has been a great honor speaking with you today.

Foley: It’s been a pleasure, Jonathan.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

On Friday morning, I had the opportunity to converse with Montana Senate President Jon Tester over the telephone about his Senate campaign this year. Tester'a main competition for the Democratic nomination to challenge GOP Sen. Conrad Burns is state Auditor John Morrison, with whom we are also trying to set up an interview.

Tester and I covered a range of interviews during our conversation, including ethics, energy, agriculture, Iraq, port security, and why the progressive blogosphere should get involved in the campaign. You can listen to the interview here (warning: an 18.3 megabyte mp3) or read the rush transcript below.

Jonathan Singer: National Journal’s annual vote ranking just came out today showing Conrad Burns near the middle of the Republican pack with a conservative score of 73 out of 100. Would you say he’s too conservative for Montana?

Jon Tester: What I would say is he’s lost touch with Montana. I think he, by some of his actions, he’s really kind of fell in love with Washington, DC, and I think that he’s lost touch with Montana values. And I say that because of a number of different things that he has either not done or failed to take a leadership role in.

Singer: It goes without saying that Senator Burns’ ties to Jack Abramoff will play a large role in this year’s election, but to what extent will you make it central in your campaign?

Tester: I think any time you’re dealing with issues of ethics and honesty, that’s a big issue in the state of Montana. It’s an issue that most people just take for granted, that the people they elect to office are honest and ethical and represent everybody’s needs – or at least try to represent everybody’s needs.

So the ethics question is something that is going to play a role in this election because of what’s happened back in Washington, DC, and the pay-to-play and culture of corruption back there. But what I’m going to do with it is talk about me, and talk about honesty, integrity, being an ethical person, being an ethical business person, legislator. And I’ve said from the beginning on this stuff with Abramoff that somebody who’s been bought and paid for by a lobbyist shouldn’t be back there, regardless of party. They should be replaced.

Singer: Do you think this scandal is more about lobbying or actual Republican corruption?

Tester: Well, you know what they say: there wouldn’t any crooked lobbyists if there weren’t crooked Senators and Congressmen taking the money. I think it has to do with the culture of corruption back there in Washington, DC right now. You’ve always heard rumors and whimpers of corruption, but it’s never, ever been this loud. It scares me because that’s not how a Democracy is supposed to work. You’re supposed to listen and make the best decision for everybody, not just for a select few who have enough money to buy influence.

Singer: There have been a lot of complaints about the Medicare prescription drug – the Part D plan – particularly how it was passed, but also the poor implementation so far. You’ve got a lot of seniors up in Montana. How have they been responding to–

Tester: I think they’re very frustrated with the complex nature of the plan. We have encouraged Senator Burns and other folks in our delegation to extend the sign up period. I think Senator Baucus has agreed to push to get that extension done. I don’t think Senator Burns has. I think what the extension does allow for is more time for seniors to make decisions about their healthcare. I think that’s only fair. And I think the decision to extend the sign up deadline should happen right now so that those seniors aren’t stressed out with the program, because it’s very complex.

That being said – and you probably already know this, Jonathan – we passed a bill that will help seniors and disabled folks pay the premiums on that Medicare Part D. But still, in all, that program is in effect. And we’ll take some of the tobacco tax monies that were put on by a vote of the people and we’ll dedicate I think about $10 million to pay the premiums of that Medicare Part D in Montana. But I still think that they need to extend the sign up deadline, because it gives our seniors more time to look at this very complex plan.

Singer: You bring up Senator Baucus. Senator Baucus is towards the middle political spectrum, and to my recollection – if it’s correct – played a role in the passage of the Medicare bill as the ranking member in the committee. Do you share his philosophy of legislating, trying to tend to the middle, or will you stick closer to your progressive roots should you be elected?

Tester: My philosophy is represent what’s best for the people, and if what’s best for the people is in the middle, to the right or to the left, that’s fine. Do what’s best for the people, listen to the people, get the best information you can, make the decision you can make based on the information you get.

Ultimately, when I’m in Washington, DC, I am going to be listening to Montanans. I was born and raised here, my folks made their living here, my grandparents homesteaded here, Montana’s in my blood – literally. I don’t necessarily look at issues from middle, left, right, I look at issues what’s best for the people of the state of Montana, and that’s how I’ll cast my votes.

Singer: You are not only a legislator, you are also a farmer.

Tester: That’s right.

Singer: I know that a significant portion of the federal budget is reserved specifically for farm subsidies. As a Senator, would you be in favor, in an effort to decrease the federal deficit, to cut some of these subsidies?

Tester: You put my in a difficult quandary with that question because I know how the marketplace is being manipulated by multinational corporations. Basically, you’ve got very few companies that control 80 percent or better of the world’s food supply. Much of those farm subsidies are a direct result of lack of competition in the marketplace.

Where I would approach this from first is try to encourage – though enforcement of anti-trust or through facilitation of small business in the agricultural processing area so that there’s more marketplace available – but try to encourage more competition in the marketplace. I think when you do that, then you get closer to cost of production for the farmer, and there’s less need for those farm subsidies.

Singer: Montana has been at the forefront of the effort to increase America’s energy production. What steps would you take in Washington to get us closer, as Americans, to energy independence?

Tester: Well Jonathan, that’s a good question, and it is something that really does provide some opportunity for Montana.

My focus initially would be on renewables. I think there is a tremendous opportunity for wind generation in this state, and that’s been borne out by what we did last session with some wind energy incentives that moved us from 50th to 15th in the nation in wind energy production just since the session adjourned last April. There’s room for more energy development in wind here in this state – and around the country, I might add – but particularly in Montana. We’ve got a lot of wind in the Eastern part.

There’s also a tremendous amount of opportunity for biofuels. Basically taking the oil seed plants, squeezing them, getting that oil, which burns like diesel. In fact, that’s why diesel engines were first built, to run on peanut oil. We raise safflower, sunflower, canola, rape… a number of oil seeds up here in Montana that could be easily pressed for oil. You get the oil, plus you get the benefit of a pretty decent quality cattle feed out of it to fatten cattle. So you really kill two birds with one stone.

Ethanol is another one that I think we have some opportunity in this state with some of our low-grade wheats and barleys that aren’t up to snuff for milling, because we do have pretty high quality wheats in this state, but every once in a while we get sprout problems or low protein problems, and that grain is particularly suited to ethanol.

So I think that would be a great start and a great way to get weaned off of that Middle Eastern bottle, but I also think another thing that needs to be done is we need to dedicate some research dollars for renewables, to make them more efficient, but also to petroleum fuels we are using so we can figure out a way to cut down on the amount of CO2 that’s going into the atmosphere. I think that that issue is a very important issue that we need to address sooner rather than later because of the global warming aspects, and I think science has proven out that this isn’t a myth, it’s for real.

Singer: To what extent do you think coal should play in this energy race? I know that your governor has been talking publicly about turning coal into clean, or at least somewhat clean, gasoline or diesel for cars, and you have a lot of coal in Montana. Would you be pushing that as well, you think?

Tester: I think there’s some opportunity for coal development in the state, but there are some things that have to be addressed along with that: sulfur, lead, mercury and CO2, and that’s why I think we need to do our best. If those things are handled in a way that doesn’t take future generations down, I think we need to move forward.

I’ve listened to the governor a lot. I’ve talked to him about the coal gasification stuff. He may well be on to something here. The CO2 issue is an issue that bothers me, but if there’s a way to sequester that CO2 or reduce the amount of CO2 that’s produced from the coal, I think that may be the way to go, another avenue.

Singer: A couple more issue questions before we go to politics. Port security. I know that Montana is a landlocked state, however it does share a border, an international border, with Canada. To what extent is the President’s plan to sell American ports to the United Arab Emirates, in effect, playing in your state?

Tester: Well we have a lot of those containers that are unloaded at those ports go through Montana over the rail lines, in fact a tremendous amount of them. It’s a continual flow along Highway 2 of containers going East and West, to and from those ports. It’s critically important that we have the kind of security that will help resolve any threat that those containers coming in the country might have. So for that standpoint, it is a big concern, even though we are a landlocked state.

But I think the question here is why aren’t we using American companies to run these ports? We’ve got so many good things that go for this country. Why are we outsourcing this? We don’t need to outsource this. These are jobs for Americans in American cities servicing American ports. It makes no sense to me to outsource this job, whether it’s to the Middle East or anywhere.

Singer: Speaking of the Middle East, America seems to be stuck in Iraq, or something to that effect, for quite some time. Congressman John Murtha put forward a plan. Where do you stand on his plan or other similar plans to help get America out of Iraq?

Tester: I think it’s important to know that I think that President Bush was too quick to declare victory in Iraq. I think that’s rather obvious. But the President does need to develop an exit strategy. An open-ended commitment for occupation of Iraq is really bad. I think it’s bad for our troops, it’s bad for us economically, from a fiscal responsibility standpoint I think it’s bad.

My stand on this issue since the fall has been President Bush needs to develop a plan using the intelligence that he has and get the troops out as quickly as possible. I think that the whole area is less stable now than it was when we went in, and that distresses me. I think that we need to be starting to use diplomacy first instead of force. The war in Afghanistan is a little different story, because I do support that war and the war on terror, but I really think we went into Iraq under false pretences and we need to do our best to get out as quickly as possible.

Singer: Let’s just turn to the campaign, to the primary, specifically, for a moment. Why you? Why not John Morrison, who is also running for the Democratic nomination?

Tester: There’s a lot of primaries around the country – you know that Jonathan – where the public is given a choice to make a decision. Basically, what people have to look at in the primaries is who’s best suited to beat the person in the general and the second thing is what kind of Democrat do they want to send to Washington, DC, once the general is over that that person has supposedly won.

I think that if you look at myself as a farmer from North Central Montana, third generation, my wife’s forth generation, a guy that’s been on the farm with my wife for the last – well, since 1978 – 27 years, been married 28 years, we have a couple kids, they’re both in Montana. I mean we’re tied to the state. You combine that with the fact that I’ve been in the Montana Senate since I was elected in ’98, been in leadership in the ’01 session as Democratic Whip, ’03 session as Democratic floor leader, and ’05 session as Senate President. I think that kind of leadership shows that I can get things done. And I think that profile of the farmer, the small businessperson in Montana is something that gives me an advantage in the election over John Morrison. I think that’s what the people really have to decide on is who’s got the best chance of beating Conrad Burns come November and what kind of Democrat do they want to send to Washington, DC after that general election.

Singer: Just one final question. A lot of people in the blogosphere are watching this race, and I’m sure that they don’t need much more prodding to get involved, but what would you like to say specifically to members of the progressive blogosphere to bring them into your campaign?

Tester: You know a lot of these elections are decided in the primary. And it’s important that the folks out there in the blogosphere know that I need their support.

One of my very strong tendencies is I’m not afraid to stand up and go against the flow, I’m not afraid to stand up and say what’s right, and I’m certainly somebody who’s going to represent the average Joe that’s on the street.

I am – and I don’t classify this as being a knock – I’m an average guy. I’ve got two kids, a wife. My parents helped teach me the business I’m in. And I’m not rich. I don’t have a ton of money. I know what it’s like to balance the checkbook. I know what it’s like to struggle to pay bills at the end of the month. I’ve done all those things, and I continue to do all of those things even right now as we speak. Finances have always been something that we have struggled with, like most American families have, to buy a home, buy a new car or just pay the insurance bill.

So I’m going to take those kind of qualities to Washington, DC, and I think a lot of people in the blogosphere are in the same boat. They’re regular people. They’re not rich. They work for the dollars they get, and they work hard for them. If they want someone back in Washington, DC who’s going to represent everybody, and not fall into this pay-to-play mentality, just represent the upper crust, then I’m their guy.

The thing about these doggone elections are they’re based way too much on money. Conrad Burns has already said in the general he’s going to raise $10 million. So we’ve got to compete with that. And like I said, I wasn’t born into a lot of money, I don’t know a lot of rich people, but we sure have gotten a lot of support from a lot of folks that have given $10, $15, $25, $50, and $100, and I would just encourage the folks out there that don’t like the direction the country’s going to take a look around and determine how they want to spend their money – politically wise, is what I mean – and hopefully they’ll decide to support Jon Tester.

Singer: Terrific. Thanks so much for joining me, particularly in light of your cold right now.

Tester: Yeah, it’s a miserable damn thing, but I guess when I’ll get done with it I’ll have more immunity for the next one.

Singer: Well, feel better and good luck with your campaign.

Tester: Hey, Jonathan, very good visiting with you. Thank you very much, too. I certainly appreciate your time, too.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

On Wednesday afternoon, I had the chance to speak over the telephone with Hennepin County District Attorny Amy Klobuchar, the presumptive Democratic Senate nominee in the great state of Minnesota.

Klobuchar and I covered a range of interviews during our conversation, including the situation in Iraq, GOP corruption, US port security and the United Arab Emirates, local Minnesota issues, and why the progressive blogosphere should get involved in the campaign.. You can listen to the interview here (warning: a 15.1 megabyte mp3) or read the rush transcript below.

Jonathan Singer: I don’t know if you saw, but the news out of Iraq today does not inspire much optimism, with the AP raising the specter of an outright civil war in the country. Is there anything America can do to help remedy the situation?

Amy Klobuchar: I opposed this war in the first place. The administration went into this war without a plan and without the help of other countries to the extent that we have seen in other wars. We sort of had a go it alone philosophy. Sadly, it just keeps going on and on and on. You just pray for our troops and that we will see success there.

But the bottom line is, I think we – as the events of today bear out – that we need a significant change of course so that we can send a message to the people of Iraq that we’re not going to be staying there indefinitely, that we do bring some of our troops home, and that we transition to them, because, so far, sadly, as much as our troops are doing everything they can and as brave as they can, when we went into this war in false pretences – which I think Colin Powell called a blot on his career – and the administration has been spending so much of their time sort of spinning the war and explaining it and getting involved in legal entanglements. This is not the direction we should be going.

The other thing that bothers me about this is that it took us away from other pressing crises, in terms of Iran, North Korea and some of these other countries and potential high risks, in terms of weapons of mass destruction, where we should have been putting our resources.

We’ve now spent over $300 billion, over 2,000 Americans have been killed, countless Iraqis. We have to hold the people accountable that brought us to the place that we are.

Singer: Where do you stand on something like the Murtha Amendment, or other similar plans to help extricate itself from Iraq?

Klobuchar: I would like to see a drawdown of the troops this year, a significant drawdown of the troops. I don’t believe that at this point we can set a specific date to get each and every troop out of Iraq, as much some people would like to see that. I understand the sentiment, and I don’t think we should be attacking people who are at least in good faith trying to come up with good solutions. My hope is that we could bring in peacekeeping forces, whether it is the UN or NATO, and I believe that to make that work would have to be a part of that. You know we went into that country and dismantled their police force, their army, and to just get out overnight would not be responsible. So I would like to see a transition to an international peacekeeping force that I believe we would most likely be a part of.

Singer: To the best of my knowledge, your Republican opponent, Rep. Mark Kennedy, has not been directly implicated in the corruption scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff. Will you still be talking about the GOP corruption in general during the campaign?

Klobuchar: I will.

In my role as a prosecutor, you draw the line every day. We see white collar cases come into our office. It usually starts with someone maybe stealing a little money from the petty cash, and then they end up taking millions of dollars from the workers’ 401k accounts. And I believe it’s our job to draw the line and say there’s a difference between what’s right and what’s wrong.

Well, in 2006, it’s going to be the job of the American people, the voters. Because what’s happened here is really the responsibility of everyone in leadership in Washington, DC, because this started with them bringing… I always say, “You dance with the one that brung ya,” that that’s what’s going on out there. They would give tax loopholes to their friends and give companies the ability to send jobs overseas that brought them into office, and then the next thing you know, they’re taking PAC contributions and funneling them into other PACs, trying to hide them, and the next thing you know they’re lying before a grand jury. That’s what this culture of corruption is.

And if you asked how does my opponent, Congressman Kennedy… what does he have to do with it? I’ll just look at the prescription drug bill. This was a bill pushed by the Republican leadership. Congressman Kennedy did support this bill. And it basically insulated the prescription drug companies from competition.

A study just came out two weeks ago that showed the Veterans Affairs, that agency – they negotiate prices with the drug companies – their prices are about 50 percent lower than they are for Medicare Part D. 50 percent lower. That’s about $90 billion a year. So what’s the cost of the culture of corruption? Of people giving breaks to the oil companies and giving giveaways and Christmas presents to the drug companies and the insurance companies? The cost is $90 billion a year. There you go. Quantifiable.

You go down the line, and I believe we need to start putting the people in front of these drug companies and in front of these oil companies and coming up with solutions for people. In my job in local government, you don’t have the luxury of just putting your head in the sand, and doing favors for your friends and throwing out partisan bombshells all of the time, you actually got to make decisions and get things done. And that’s the spirit that I want to bring to Washington, DC.

Singer: Let’s talk about a different billion figure. I don’t know it exactly, I think it’s something like $6.8 billion is the amount that a government-owned company in the United Arab Emirates bought control over some American ports. There has been some talk among Republicans opposing this – most of the opposition comes from Democrats – but we see leading Republicans like John Warner, who is the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, really coming out in favor of it. Where do you stand? Do you think that we should be handing over essentially control of American ports to the UAE?

Klobuchar: No I don’t, and I was quite shocked when I saw this. We are living in a world where we are constantly concerned about terror and homeland security, and here we are going to be turning our ports over – and presumably the security part of our ports – to these foreign countries. I couldn’t believe it.

We have ports here in Minnesota. I know not everyone would expect that, but we do in Duluth, Lake Superior, and down the river, and I checked into that today, and our ports are all owned by home-grown companies in the United States and in Minnesota, and that’s the way it should be.

Singer: Are there any other specific issues or items of legislation you’ll try and bring to Washington, should Minnesotans send you there?

Klobuchar: I come from a place, Minnesota, where we value things like hard work and fair play and responsibility. I learned hard work from my grandpa. He worked 1,500 feet underground in the mines in Ely, Minnesota. He saved money in a coffee can to send my dad to college. I grew up in a middle class neighborhood, knew I’d always have to work hard to get where I wanted to go.

What I see going on in Washington is just a deterioration of that American dream, a middle class crunch, where people in our state – they’ve got jobs, a lot of them – but they keep saying, “What’s going on? It’s harder and harder for me to get by, it’s harder for me to buy a house, it’s harder for me to send my kids to college.” Well, the numbers are their. Tuition at the University of Minnesota up 81 percent, healthcare costs up 3 ½ times the average wage. We are basically losing our middle class with these wrongheaded policies where we are having the wrong priorities, we are giving tax cuts to the wealthiest, giving loopholes to the big corporate special interests, and it’s becoming harder and harder for people to get by.

So if you asked what I want to work on, I want to work on, one, balancing this budget – they’ve taken a $300 billion Clinton budget surplus and turned it into a $300 billion Bush budget deficit – by going back to the pay-as-you-go rules that we had during the Clinton administration, looking at cutting down on this discretionary spending so we can put the money where it counts, on our big challenges of healthcare reform and energy independence. I would like to see more money to help kids afford college and change the priorities away from the wealthiest and the healthiest for healthcare. I would like to see true energy independence. We are sitting here in Minnesota on what we consider the Saudi Arabia of energy with the wind sweeping through the prairies. Down in Southwestern Minnesota, we have many, many wind turbines, to the point that they’ve now set up a bed and breakfast there, so people can go down and spend a weekend touring the wind turbines, so if you’re interested in that, you can come down to Minnesota for a weekend.

But we’re very excited and optimistic about the energy future here, the good it’ll do for the environment, the reduction in dependency on foreign oil. But to get there, it’s not just talk – it’s actually setting standards. I want to see a 20 percent renewable energy standard for electricity. I want to see higher standards for renewable fuel. I want to see them change the federal fleet of cars, which has just been sitting there without fuel-efficient cars for years and years and years. We need to lead by example.

Singer: You brought up your roots outside of the Twin Cities. I know that you have a strong political base of support within the Democratic-friendly Twin Cities, but how might you extend this to places like the Iron Range and other places that, at least in recent years, have been less friendly to Democrats?

Klobuchar: I represent a quarter of the state of Minnesota right now, and it’s an area – Hennepin County – that is two-thirds suburban, and then an urban area. It is one of the areas where you look at where Kerry picked up a number of supporters, people in the suburbs who wanted to see more of a focus on education and transportation. So that’s an important piece of this.

But the fact [is] that my roots are on the Iron Range up in Northern Minnesota. I have many friends there, Congressman Oberstar’s support. And what I’ve found is that people there, or down in Southern Minnesota – Mankato, where my husband and his five brothers are from – they’re basically saying a lot of the same things. And I think this election, which is so critical on these issues of what’s right and what’s wrong, unite people across geographic lines.

The issue of CAFTA, the Central America Free Trade Agreement, really hurt 30,000 farmers and their families and workers in the Red River valley in the Northwestern part of our state. So that’s something where Congressman Kennedy was the deciding vote for CAFTA, when they could have put in some amendments and changes that would have helped that industry in our state and chose not to do that. Again, a go it alone philosophy. Didn’t listen to Congressman Collin Peterson or some of our North Dakota friends, and they just kept it as it is.

Those are issues that people are going to care about in our state, whether they’re farmers or workers. So as I look at a state as a whole, I see some unique issues in different parts of it, but I also see that overriding concern that we need change in Washington, we need someone who’s going to work on solutions for people for a change, someone who’s not going to spend the whole time in a 24 hour TV shout-fest about what’s right and what’s left and instead talk about what’s right and what’s wrong, because when you talk to people in Minnesota about what’s right and what’s wrong, people listen. They know it’s right to make Social Security a guarantee and it’s wrong to make it a gamble. They know it’s right to invest in our kids and education and it’s wrong to give oversized tax cuts to the wealthiest among us. They know it’s right to invest in our troops and herald our veterans and they know it’s wrong to go to war without a plan. And when you talk to them this way, they listen.

They are so fed up with what I call the lies and the legends. I always tell the story of a diner in my neighborhood. It’s called Betty’s Bikes and Buns. They’ve got this business card that says, “Betty’s Bikes and Buns: Where Lies Become Legends.” Well the people in our state are beginning to see the lies beneath the legends of the leadership in Washington, DC. They told us there were weapons of mass destruction; there weren’t. They told us they’d leave no child behind; they left behind millions. They told us they’d unite this country, and they’ve divided us as ever before. They told us that we’d be ready for any national disaster, and you just ask that mom stranded on the roof in New Orleans for three days with her three kids if that was true and she’ll tell you the truth.

They’ve had it with lies and legends, and they want to see some leadership – real leadership – on issues like affordable healthcare and energy independence and tax fairness and economic and international security.

Singer: I just want to ask you one more question. What would you like to say specifically to the members of the liberal blogosphere to get them involved in the campaign? There’s no longer a primary. It seems like Minnesota is a “blue” state. Why should they expend time, money and effort to help you win?

Klobuchar: I’m running against one of the most conservative Members of Congress. He has had in for him now Frist, Card, he’s had Hastert, he’s had Cheney, he’s had George W. Bush in for a fundraiser on Air Force One, and now he’s actually going out to Washington to have an event with Karl Rove. The only celebrities we’ve had are the Gear Daddy’s Band of Austin, Minnesota who’s most famous song is “I Want to Ride the Zamboni.”

So we need help from the blogosphere. We need help from progressives across this country to stand up and help me with this race. I’ve done everything that I can. We’ve built a huge grassroots network. We’re in the process of adding more and more volunteers every day. Jeff Blodgett, who was Paul Wellstone’s campaign manager, has been helping me extensively. I’ve raised money from my kitchen table, from the Internet – I always joke that I’ve even raised $15,000 from ex-boyfriends, and as my husband notes, that’s not an expanding base.

This is going to be a truly grassroots effort. And we’re going to need everyone on board across the country. I know it’s hard to pronounce my last name – it’s Klo [rhymes with glow] – bu [buh] – char [more like shar]. But we need people to get beyond that and help us in Minnesota with spreading the word about what I stand for, which is, in the true Minnesota tradition, this belief that one Senator from Minnesota can make a difference. That we can send someone to Washington who’s going to change the culture and who’s going to put people in front of the big oil companies and the big drug companies and actually get something done. That’s what I’ve been about in my career. When I took on the big insurance companies when they kicked my out of the hospital when my daughter was born – she was really sick – in 24 hours. And I went to the legislature and got one of the first laws passed in the country for a 48-hour hospital stay for new moms and their babies.

I’ve taken on these tough fights and I’ve won them. But I know very well with the people that I’m up against, who are going to fight with every fiber of their being to hang on to their special interest tax breaks and loopholes, that I can’t do this alone. I’m going to need people at my side. I’m going to need people with laptops on my side. I’m going to need them watching my back on the blogs, and so that’s what I ask you to do for me.

Singer: Well terrific. Good luck and thank you so much for your time.

Klobuchar: OK. It was great being on, Jonathan. I hope we didn’t have to cut it too short here. And I was sorry I was a little late.

Singer: No, that’s perfect. Thank you again.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

This morning, I spoke with Democratic Congressman Ben Cardin (D-MD), one of of two leading contenders for the Democratic senatorial nomination in the Maryland (the other being former Congressman Kweisi Mfume, who we have also invited to speak with MyDD).

Cardin and I spoke about a number of topics, including ethics reform, healthcare, the Murtha resolution, and domestic wiretapping. You can listen to the interview here (warning: a 14.3 megabyte mp3) or read the rush transcript below.

Jonathan Singer: In President Bush’s most recent budget, it appears that he has indeed stuck in his plan to partially privatize Social Security. Do you think that the Democrats – you in Congress – will be able to stop it?

Ben Cardin: First, I’m not surprised by what the President has done. He is committed to privatizing Social Security. He’s made that clear. This is an area he wants to make progress, and he will not deter. He’s going to continue to use every effort to start down the path of privatizing Social Security.

The budget that he has submitted starts to spend taxpayer money – actually goes into debt – in order to start the privatization by setting up these private accounts. I personally do not believe that the Congress will approve it. I think that the President took his case to the American people last year and they resoundingly said no. Whether they were older people or younger people, they understood that you don’t strengthen Social Security by taking money out of it.

So I believe that we will be successful, the Democrats, in blocking the efforts in 2006, but that’s not the end of it. We still have to stay very strong in our opposition.

Singer: Your competitor on the Republican side of the aisle, Michael Steele, is extremely close to the Bush administration. I know they have raised money for him and cajoled him into the race. To what extent will you try to label him just a stooge for the administration?

Cardin: President Bush said when he came to Maryland to campaign for Lieutenant Governor Steele that he was campaigning for people who agree with his agenda. So I think it’s very clear that if Michael Steele were elected to the United States Senate, there would be another vote for George Bush’s policies to privatize Social Security; there would be another vote for George Bush’s reckless fiscal policies that have accumulated a lot of debt and are sending jobs overseas; there would be another vote for the oil interests – despite what the President says, the energy policy in this country is non-existent; there would be another vote for President Bush’s foreign policy. So yes, we will very much be making the issue that Marylanders want a voice in the United States Senate that will stand up to these Bush policies.

Singer: Jack Abramoff. Kind of central thing in this 109th Congress. Although Michael Steele might not be directly connected to him, to what extent will you be bringing up the general scandal that is surrounding the Republican Party these days?

Cardin: I think it is very important that Marylanders send to the United States Senate a person who has a record of principled leadership. I’ll be talking about my own record, the fact that I have served on the ethics committee, I was principally responsible for the investigation of Newt Gingrich, that I was involved in developing the ethics rules for the Maryland General Assembly, and that I do think you want someone in the United States Senate who understands that we need to change the basic attitude in Washington between lobbyist and lawmaker.

Singer: Now let’s look at something specific to your state of Maryland. Your state legislature enacted a plan that would mandate that large companies, like Wall Mart, provide at least some healthcare benefits, either directly to workers or through contributions to the state program. Should Congress look at a similar plan?

Cardin: Congress should pass a program that provides for universal health insurance coverage.

It is not acceptable for us to have 45 to 47 million Americans without health insurance. It’s not fair for those who have health insurance to pay for those who do not have health insurance. That was the frustration in Maryland, where you had companies that were not only paying for their own employees but literally paying for their competitors’ employees because of the extra cost for the uninsured.

So the Congress should pass legislation that guarantees that every person in this country has health insurance, and it’s in every one of our interests that that be done.

Singer: I’d actually like to go back to ethics for a second.

Cardin: Sure.

Singer: There’s something in The Hill newspaper this morning you may not have seen already. Congressman David Dreier [R-CA] originally in 1997 pushed a plan that would use private citizens as independent investigators for the House ethics committee. Now that Barack Obama is in favor of such a plan, Dreier is no longer. Do you think that there needs to be some outside oversight to both the House and the Senate ethics, or do you think that’s a plan that no longer worthy of discussion.

Cardin: I think we need to open up the ethics process internally. Under the constitution, the legislature must judge its own members, the Congress must judge its own members. But I do think we should allow more outside help in the way that we review ethics complaints.

For example, I chaired the ethics commission that brought in the rules that we operate in Congress, and one of our major recommendations was not accepted: to allow outside groups to bring a complaint.

So I do think that it’s important for us to open up the process. Whether it’s the Obama recommendation or whether to allow outside groups to initiate complaints, I think it’s important that we make the system more available for the public to initiate complaints.

Singer: Now let’s shift over to some more international issues. Your colleague John Murtha put forward a plan to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq by the end of the year, placing them in Kuwait so that they would be nearby in case of emergency. What do you think of this plan?

Cardin: Clearly, we need a plan to get our troops home from Iraq, quickly and safely, and this administration has not come forward with a workable plan for removal of our troops.

Clearly, the policies that this administration has pursued have not been effective, and we need to energize the international community to assume a greater responsibility in Iraq, and we’re not going to be able to do that until we have a game plan that involves our troops being removed.

Singer: There has been some investigation into President Bush’s, the administration’s domestic wiretapping program. [Rep.] Heather Wilson [R-NM] now is at least talking about investigations in the House. How far does this need to go for Congress to be apprised of the program?

Cardin: I personally believe the President has violated law with the NSA intercepts by not seeking court supervision. I think that Congress has a principal responsibility in its oversight function to do an independent investigation of this issue and let the facts lead where they may. But it’s got to be thorough, it’s got to be independent, and it has to be able to go wherever it needs to in order to make sure that the laws of this country are adhered to.

Singer: During World War II, Harry Truman led a committee that investigated war profiteering, finding billions of dollars in profiteering, indeed. Congress seems to be in a different mindset these days, with your disgraced colleague [former-Rep.] Randy “Duke” Cunningham [R-CA] in fact putting in war profiteering into legislation. Can the trend be reversed? Can there be another Harry Truman that emerges?

Cardin: Once again, a principal responsibility of Congress is oversight: to make sure that there are not abuses in the Executive branch, to make sure that there are not abuses in the private sector, that, when we are at war, we want to make sure that sacrifices are fairly shared, that there are not profits made from either war or natural disaster – what happened in Hurricane Katrina is another example of an area that needs to be reviewed.

Yes. I think that first it starts with Congressional investigations that are independent that look at the profits were made during this war in Iraq and our war against terror, and look at the profits that were made during Katrina and report back to Congress and the American people so that the appropriate laws are adhered to, but also that if there are new laws that are needed, Congress has an opportunity to act.

But I must point out this Congress under Republican leadership is not doing it and won’t do it. There’s no interest in this Congress, which is extremely disappointing. We’ve been pointing this out, and I think the Republican leadership needs to be held accountable.

Singer: You have, I would imagine, taken trips in the past – educational trips – whether they are government-funded or privately-funded, as have most members of Congress. Is it possible to separate truly educational trips from the types of trips, say going and playing golf at St. Andrews in Scotland?

Cardin: It first starts with individual judgment. A Member should not go on a trip paid for by third parties unless that trip will further that Congressman’s responsibilities in Congress. So therefore these educational seminars that we participate in by non-profit groups that give us a chance to focus on important issues with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are important opportunities, because we get to meet with some of the brightest minds in the world and we have a chance to try to talk out issues and come up with workable solutions. But when you have special interests that are paying for trips that are more social than they are business, the individual legislator shouldn’t participate in that. But I’m afraid that we need to change the rules to make it clear that we won’t tolerate that.

So yes, it is possible to draw a line, but unfortunately that line will have to be a lot tighter now as a result of the abuses, and it’s very possible that some worthwhile trips will have to be sacrificed in order to make it clear that we can’t tolerate special interests taking Members of Congress to these social trips rather than business trips.

Singer: Just one final question… I don’t think the progressive blogosphere has paid as much attention to Maryland as other Senate races. What would you like to say to the members of the progressive blogosphere to get them more involved in the campaign?

Cardin: Don’t take Maryland for granted. Maryland, I think most people believe, is a good blue state, but remember we have a Republican Governor, and that this election, the Republicans nationally are going to pour a lot of interest in trying to win this seat. And clearly, the Republican nominee will be a rubber stamp for George Bush.

The Democrats need to be unified, need to be focused on this seat, so at the end of the day, Maryland is on the Democratic side of the Senate and adds to the momentum nationally of changing the direction of the United States Senate.

Look at the issues here in Maryland. We’re going to have a candidate running on the Republican side who’s going to try to reinvent himself, and we have to make sure that people understand what’s at stake in the Maryland Senate race. So therefore I would just urge people to stay tuned and get involved. We need your help.

Singer: And could you speak specifically to the primary as well, because it is a contested primary.

Cardin: The primary is seven weeks before the general. And if we all sit back and don’t do anything and say we’ll wait until the Democrats figure out their primary before we get involved in Maryland, there’s a much better chance that Michael Steele will be the next United States Senator.

The Republicans are working right now. They know who their nominee is and they’re getting involved well before the primary.

Democrats, and those who believe in progressive causes, need to be united earlier. We need to be smarter in the way we run campaigns.

In the state of Maryland, we’ve organized our campaign –I’m only talking about my campaign, because there’s a lot of friends that I know that are running in the primary, and they’re good people – but we’ve organized a campaign that will not only win the primary but will win the general.

We have campaign organizations in every part of Maryland, we have support in every part of Maryland. We not only do extremely well in the base areas, we also do well in the purple areas of Maryland, and we’ll do more competitively in the red areas. We also have raised money, we have put together the campaign team, and I think any objective observer who looks at the primary in Maryland knows that I am the strongest candidate and I stand by my record of accomplishment.

And I do think it’s important to take a side early in the Maryland election and not wait until the primaries are over, because if we do, then we give the Republicans a much better chance of winning the seat.

Singer: Terrific. Thank you so much for your time and good luck with your campaign.

Cardin: Thank you.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

On Saturday afternoon, I had the chance to speak over the telephone with Congressman Ted Strickland (D-OH), one of of two leading contenders for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in the Buckeye state (the other being former Congressman Eric Fingerhut, the party's 2004 senatorial nominee in the state and a current member of the state Senate).

Strickland and I spoke about a range of topics, including his decision to leave the House; the conduct of the 2004 presidential election in Ohio; ethics and lobbying; Medicare; Medicaid; and why the blogosphere should become involved in the race. You can listen to the interview here (warning: a 28.7 megabyte large wav file) or read the rush transcript below.

Jonathan Singer: Despite the fact that you represent one of the most competitive districts in the country, it’s fairly clear that were you to run for reelection to the House, you would win reelection quite handily. So why run for governor now?

Ted Strickland: Leaving the House was a difficult decision for me because I am terribly troubled at national policies being pursued by the Bush administration, and I obviously would like to remain in the House so that at least I could be part of the loyal opposition.

Having said that, the governor’s office in Ohio is terribly important to the future of our state, which is made up over eleven million people, and perhaps to the future of the country, because I believe if the Democrats win the governor’s race in ’06 it makes it much more likely that we will win the presidency in ’08. So I’m running for governor because I feel like I have an obligation to do so.

I think for reasons that are, perhaps, not related to any of my personal qualities or skills or abilities but for reasons related to geography and history and experience and political positioning, I’m the person in Ohio who is most likely to be able to win the governor’s race as a Democrat, and I think that means that I’ve got a responsibility to make the effort.

Singer: Getting a little more in depth into your decision-making process, the Democrats seem to have a shot at retaking the House next year, but the party’s task is made somewhat more difficult by the problems retaining your seat. How much did that play into your decision-making process?

Strickland: I think that we’ll be able to hold this seat. It’s not something that’s assured, certainly, but – I don’t mean to sound arrogant here – but I think the people in my current congressional district have a lot of confidence in me, Republicans and Democrats alike. And I think two things make it more likely that we’ll be able to hold this seat. First of all, I think I can have an influence on who people choose to vote for just by my strong support and endorsement. And secondly, I think if I’m the Democratic nominee for governor, it is likely that Democratic constituencies, supporters or voters, are likely to turn out in that district in very large numbers in support of me, and I think that makes it much more likely that they will retain the Democrat in the House.

[Cell phone interference]

I realize the effort that it’s going to take to hold onto that seat, but I think we will hold that seat.

Singer: Let’s talk a little bit about the 2004 election and election issues in general. There’s a lot of outrage within the blogosphere and the progressive world in general about the way that the 2004 presidential election was run in your state. Some even believe that the election was, in one way or another, taken from the Democrats. What do you think?

Strickland: I think there were purposeful efforts to suppress the vote in different ways. Whether or not they were illegal activities associated with the election, I think it’s hard to know for sure. I think certainly, especially Mr. Blackwell our Secretary of State and the likely Republican nominee for governor, I think he certainly as Secretary of State took actions and made decisions that resulted in a suppressed vote, and I think that very well could have had a significant effect on the final outcome.

Singer: I know you’re not running for Secretary of State, the position that officially has domain over such electoral issues, but what would you do as governor to improve Ohio’s elections?

Strickland: One of the things I’m doing is trying to make sure that in ’06 we not only elect a governor, and I hope that I’m that person, but that we also elect a Secretary of State that has respect for this most precious of our rights as citizens, and that’s to cast a ballot with confidence that it will be accurately counted.

We have a superb candidate for Secretary of State as a Democrat, a woman, former judge whose name is Jennifer Brunner. And as I run for governor, I’m going to do everything I can to make sure that we elect a Secretary of State and an Auditor and a Treasurer and an Attorney General – that we have a slate of candidates that are credible. I think it’s very important that if I’m the nominee for governor that I not only think of my own win but I understand that, as the head of the ticket, that I have a responsibility to try to make sure that the Secretary of State and these other offices are held by credible Democrats.

Singer: I’m calling you from Oregon right now, and here we conduct our elections entirely by mail. Four of your Democratic colleagues have been elected that way in the House. We tend to have some of the highest voter turnout rates in the country. Would you consider pushing for such a system for Ohio?

Strickland: I think we should consider that and every other way to increase voter turnout. I’ve voiced support for at least looking at the possibility of having the voting hours extended, having votes over a two day period of time. I think mail-in voting certainly has worked well in your state and elsewhere. So I think whatever we can do to expand the participation of people while at the same time upholding the integrity of the process we ought to do.

Singer: Let’s move on to the topic of lobbying and ethics. In the past few months, the gritty details of the dealings of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff have become public, implicating many Republican members of Congress, including one of your fellow Ohio Representatives, Bob Ney. Has this culture of corruption overtaken Washington, or are these just a few bad apples?

Strickland: I think there is a culture of corruption here in Ohio, as well as in Washington, DC, and I think it is due, in part, to the arrogance that comes with extended periods of one-party rule, where there are no real checks and balances, where there is not the opportunity to hold investigative hearings into potential wrongdoing. I think part of it is the result of one-party domination of government for such a long period of time.

But I also think you can’t legislate character. You can be really smart and really politically savvy and be really crooked at the same time. I just think what we’ve seen happen with the Abramoff case – and, quite frankly, it looks now as if Mr. Jefferson, who’s the Democrat from New Orleans, has behaved in a terrible manner. I don’t know if you’ve read that story recently.

So political corruption is something that we ought to find intolerable and we ought to hold political figures to a higher standard of behavior due to the fact that they’re in public office.

It is my hope that what’s happening with the current investigation, and the investigations that are underway in Columbus, Ohio, will result in those who are guilty being exposed and being held accountable. Having worked in a maximum security prison for over ten years, I’ve always been disturbed with the fact that we have different standards of justice and punishment for so-called “white collar” criminals versus those who may engage in other kinds of criminal behavior.

The bottom line is if some of the accusations that we are reading about in the media are true, the people involved, if they’re found guilty, should go to jail. I think that’s an appropriate way of dealing with people who have been given high positions of public trust and then violate that trust in order to enrich themselves.

Singer: Your state, as you referenced, has been home to some of the biggest lobbying problems and corruption issues. Your Republican Governor pled no contest to four misdemeanor counts related to dealings with lobbyists. A very insider Republican, a Bush “pioneer,” in fact, Tim Noe enriched himself, it seems, through public investments and perhaps even laundered money to the Bush campaign. What would you do as governor to clean up Columbus?

Strickland: As I said, you can’t legislate character. I would act honestly and ethically if I were the governor of Ohio, and I will choose people to serve in my administration who see public service as a sacred trust rather than a way to advance themselves or to enrich themselves. I have said over and over that I will be looking for people who have a Peace Corps spirit. I think there are people who are very competent and very skillful and very bright and capable who are anxious to serve for the public good rather than self enrichment. Those are the kind of people that I would identify and place in positions of responsibility.

And then I will hold people accountable, including myself. I’ve been in the Congress for twelve years. I’m really proud of how I’ve served in that Congress. I’ve chosen voluntarily, for example, to pay for all of my healthcare rather than accept subsidized healthcare, which I’m entitled to receive as a Congressman, simply because I represent a lot of people who don’t have access to any healthcare. I have felt that when you’re elected for a term of office that you know what the salary is, so I have returned mid-term pay raises. I have voluntarily taken from my own personal resources and given back over $49,000, nearly $50,000, of resources that I could have personally kept, legitimately and legally kept. But I’ve done those things because I’ve tried to demonstrate to my constituents that I don’t ever want to allow myself to forget what life may be for many of them. As their Representative, I have tried to always remain sensitive to the problems that they are facing in their daily lives, and as governor, I would to make sure that the people of Ohio saw me and came to experience me as someone who did not hold himself in any superior way or place above them, and that while governor is an important position, I would not allow myself to get carried away with myself.

I just think it comes down to the character and the motivation of the person in office, and I have really worked hard not to come close to that ethical line but to stay back from it, because I’ve seen too many of my colleagues get as close to crossing the ethical line as possible without actually stepping over it, and I never want to govern in that kind of way.

Singer: You referenced healthcare issues. Maryland has just enacted legislation –

Strickland: Wall Mart.

Singer: – specifically aimed at Wall Mart, but I suppose for any company with more than 10,000 employees (in the state).

Strickland: It affects only Wall Mart, but it could affect other companies if they fit the criteria that’s in the law.

Singer: Would you consider such a law as governor?

Strickland: I just read about what Maryland has done within the last day or so. I haven’t had a chance to really look at the specifics of the law, but I can tell you I’m intrigued by it.

I have, in the past, supported legislation that would require companies who have employees that are receiving public assistance to be publicly identified as such companies, and that would, in most cases, involve at least Wall Mart and maybe others.

But I think there is a problem when highly profitable companies are paying their employees so little with such few benefits that they’re forced to be recipients of public benefits like Medicaid. So I’m intrigued by what’s been done in Maryland. I don’t want to commit myself specifically what they’ve done without understanding and looking at the specifics of the legislation, but I’m very interested in that. I find it very intriguing. It sounds like something that I would really be interested in pursuing, but I don’t want to say that until I know specifically what’s in the legislation.

Singer: What’s the balance between healthcare and jobs? Some say that forcing a company to provide healthcare would be a disincentive to move into a state, but others would say that putting public resources towards better healthcare in the state would draw in more companies. What’s the correct balance?

Strickland: I think we need a national system that includes everyone, that makes provisions for everyone to have access to quality and affordable healthcare. I say that just to emphasize that I think the ultimate solution to this problem that you’ve identified must be a federal solution.

In the meantime, however – and I think we will ultimately get there because we’re going to be forced to get there because our domestic industries really are being forced into non-competitive situations. In Ohio, the Delphi Corporation recently went into bankruptcy. They’ve been pretty clear that one of their major problems is that their Canadian competitors can undercut them because they don’t have the same horrendous healthcare costs that would face the Delphi Corporation in this country. I think there is a growing awareness that this is a problem that is seriously hurting our economy.

In regard to what can be done at the state level, I think several things can be done, but none of them are sufficient to really solve the problem. I think the state can use its purchasing power to try to bring down the cost of prescription medications, for example, I think the state can use its bargaining power in different ways to reduce costs, and the state can choose to allocate its Medicaid dollars and to match those federal dollars in a more robust manner. But in my judgment, nothing that is possible at the state level will fully speak to the healthcare dilemma that is faced by so many citizens and the business community. I think it ultimately has to be a comprehensive federal program

Singer: One of the real problems that the states are finding with the prescription drug benefit provided through Medicare is that seniors are either not getting the type of coverage that they’ve been promised or they’re being forced to pay more than necessary for the coverage they’re receiving. Is there much that can be done on the state level to fix that, or is this something that you would need to do in the next (few months while you are still in Congress)?

Strickland: I think the so-called “Medicare Reform Bill” that provided for the prescription benefit is a disaster. I think it’s a bill that was written primarily by the pharmaceutical industry. I think it is, for many citizens, worse than no benefit at all. I am appalled at what is being forced upon our seniors.

I was in the committee that that bill went through – the Health subcommittee of the Commerce Committee. I sat through literally hours, probably 40 hours or more of complex discussion and debate on that bill and still find it almost impossible to describe to a senior what plan would be most helpful to them, what plan would cost them the least, what plan may in fact end up costing them more than they are already paying.

So it’s a disastrous piece of legislation. It was the first step towards ultimately privatizing Medicare, as many people on the right would like to see done. As far as I’m concerned, that legislation should be repealed and we should start all over by making prescriptions a part of a traditional Medicare system where seniors could simply pay a reasonable monthly premium and an affordable deductible and have access to medications through the traditional Medicare program.

Unfortunately, Billy Tauzin, who was the chair of our committee, helped force that bill through, left the committee soon thereafter, took on a job that has been reported to pay him about $2 million per year working for the pharmaceutical industry. Tom Scully, who was in charge of the Medicare program at the Department of Health and Human Services, at the same time that bill was passing, Tom Scully was negotiating for a new job. So he left and went to work for the pharmaceutical interests.

So that bill is a pathetic piece of legislation. It was a sellout to the pharmaceutical industries. And I think some very unethical behavior was entered into by Mr. Tauzin and Mr. Tom Scully, and the welfare senior citizen in this country was sold out.

I mean there were provisions in that legislation that you probably know about that specifically prohibit the reimportation of safe drugs from Canada and that specifically prohibits our government from negotiating discounts with the pharmaceutical industry, discounts for our senior population.

So it’s a terrible piece of legislation. It’s just almost unbelievable.

Singer: It would almost be funny if it weren’t so scary that such a bill could pass.

For all of the problems currently facing Medicare, Medicaid seems to be causing even more problems for states, largely because of funding cuts on the federal level. Do you have any thoughts on how to ensure that the most needy in Ohio are able to get healthcare?

Strickland: It’s a huge problem because we just cut billions of dollars out of Medicaid over the next five years while we gave tax cuts to the richest people in this country.

What happened in the budget reconciliation bill that was passed a few weeks ago is immoral; it is, in my judgment, sinful. It’s going to make it increasingly difficult for states to meet the needs of the most vulnerable citizens, in terms of healthcare: children, disabled people, senior citizens. And it’s going to make it tough for governors to meet these most basic needs for the most vulnerable population.

So it’s going to require terrible choices. It will require that some people who are in desperate need of healthcare and are poor and who cannot afford it go without. That is immoral in my judgment.

Over the next several months while I’m still in the House of Representatives, I’m going to be continuing to raise the alarm about what’s happening with Medicaid, and it is my hope that there can be some reversal. I don’t know that it’s possible because the Republican leadership and President George W. Bush not only have a problem with their heads, they have a problem with their hearts. When it comes to poor people and sick people and vulnerable people, they are heard-hearted and they don’t seem to give a damn.

So I think those of us who care about those who are in desperate need of these services must do is continue to expose what’s happening and call attention to what’s being done and then try to still the conscience of our country so that they demand some reversals of these decisions.

Singer: I know you have to run here. There are some other issues that I would have liked to cover: jobs and education… things like that. But let’s just wrap up. Is there anything you’d like to say specifically to members of the blogosphere to get them more involved in your campaign?

Strickland: I’d just like to say to them that much is at stake.

The future of Ohio is important, and our state is suffering under corrupt Republican leadership. But I really believe that if we can win the governor’s race in Ohio in ’06 that we could put in place the kind of political infrastructure that will prevent another electoral disaster in Ohio, and it will make it much more likely that we’ll be able to elect a Democrat to be the next president of this country.

I’m concerned if we don’t start really changing the leadership in our nation soon that we’re going to lose this country as we know it, and that, both domestically and in terms of our foreign policy, that we’re going to experience a disintegration of our standing in the world and of our quality of life here in the good old USA.

Ohio seems to be at the eye of the storm, politically, right now. It’s where the larger political struggle that’s going on across the country may be decided. When they think of the race for Ohio’s next governor, I would like for them to think of the race within the context of what’s happening to the larger country and how best to try to bring some sanity to our political leadership at the national level.

Singer: Well good luck and have a wonderful Martin Luther King Day weekend.

Strickland: I have enjoyed talking to you. I hope we can talk again some time.


Singer: Likewise. I really enjoyed it.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

For the past several months, former Rhode Island Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse has been waging a campaign for the Democratic senatorial nomination in the state. Others seeking the office include the incumbent, Republican Lincoln Chafee; Steve Laffey, the conservative Republican mayor of Cranston; and the Secretary of State, Democrat Matt Brown (with whom we spoke last week).

On Friday afternoon, Whitehouse and I spoke over the telephone about a range of topics related to his campaign. I can't seem to upload the interview at this moment, so I hope the rush transcript will suffice.

Jonathan Singer: Many political pundits would say that Lincoln Chafee, just like his father, works with Democrats nearly as often as he does with his own party. Even in a state as blue as Rhode Island, how do you run against someone trying to position himself as an independent?

Sheldon Whitehouse: I think the best way to do it is to let the people of Rhode Island know what the facts are, and they include that Linc Chafee votes with his leadership and with the White House about 80 percent of the time; that he has been a critical vote for them on things like the Republican Medicaid bill that is causing great consternation right now in Rhode Island among seniors having to cope with the confusion that surrounds the new Part D benefit; and that when all is said and done, once he has decided to organize the United States Senate under this right wing Republican leadership, all of his other votes – even if they appear defensible on the surface – are in fact window dressing because this leadership is what is setting the table in the Senate.

I don’t know how he’s going to vote on Judge Alito. If he votes against him, then the people of Rhode Island should look at the circumstance that because of Chafee’s contribution to the Republican majority, there is somebody as right wing as him as a candidate, and he’s responsible for that choice even if he takes a fig leaf vote against him.

Singer: There are issues, as you said, upon which he votes strongly with his party, and those include today’s vote on the PATRIOT Act, which he voted in favor of cloture on the bill. How would you have voted?

Whitehouse: That was very discouraging. For anyone representing the people of Rhode Island, which is a state that takes its civil liberties very seriously and has a very independent tradition, to vote the way he did I think is very, very unfortunate. The PATRIOT Act is riddled with excessive provisions, and the Senate appears to have made a concerted effort to deal with some of those, but instead of the bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee worked on, they’ve tried to railroad this other bill through. I think it’s very excessive in dealing with the difficult question of balance between liberty and security that America constantly has to face.

Singer: Where do you stand on the Murtha resolution, speaking of national defense and issues like that?

Whitehouse: I’ve been in favor of rapid and responsible withdrawal from Iraq throughout this campaign. My personal belief is that we are causing as much or more, in terms security problems by our presence there, than we are gaining through the courageous and dangerous work of so many American soldiers, and that, while we have to be responsible about extracting ourselves, the sooner we are out of Iraq, the better for everyone.

Singer: Your primary opponent Matt Brown says that you’ve shifted your position on that issue. Is that a fair assessment of the history of your stances on Iraq?

Whitehouse: I don’t think so. I have defined what I mean by “rapid,” but my position has always been that there should be a rapid and responsible withdrawal of our troops. What I’ve said is that when I mean “rapid,” I don’t mean tomorrow and I don’t mean three years from now either. I mean that by the end of ’06, I would expect to see most, if not all, of our troops redeployed. And I think that’s been a consistent position. It’s a little bit of a surprise that he would find that to be a substantial change in position considering that he came into the race actively supporting the stay-the-course proposition of the Bush administration himself.

Singer: Getting back to issues of Senator Chafee and his Republican Party. Jack Abramoff, Randy “Duke” Cunningham – a number of corruption/ethics issues swirling around the Republican Party. Earlier this month, Josh Marshall reported that a staffer in Chafee’s office had come up in a number of emails relating to usage of Abramoff’s skybox in the stadium in Washington. How hard are you going to hit this issue of ethics against Republicans, generally, and Chafee, specifically?

Whitehouse: I’ve been a United States Attorney. I’ve been an Attorney General. I’ve lead significant public corruption investigations. And I take the breach of faith that public corruption represents extremely seriously.

A friend of mine who was an extremely highly-placed figure in the Clinton Department of Justice is encouraging me in my race and supporting me. And among the reasons he said to a gathering recently is that we need to have people who have that kind of law enforcement experience down here because when the day comes that the Senate again enjoys Democratic control and the Senate investigative function is no longer being squelched by the Republican monopoly on power, to use the quote, “it is a target-rich environment for Senate investigation.” I very much believe that to be true. I think that the abuse of power and the extreme levels of the Abramoff scandal, at the slightly less extreme but perhaps even more damaging levels of putting incompetent people like “Heckuva Job Brownie” into significant leadership positions at FEMA, and further into the corruption, for instance, at the EPA of its mission to protect the environment by stuffing polluting industry lobbyists into key decision-making positions. I don’t know that we’ve seen anything like it in America before.

Singer: Specifically on the issue of lobbying, your primary opponent Mr. Brown has pointed to his successes as Secretary of State in trying to rein in and reform lobbying in the state. Where do you stack up specifically on that issue?

Whitehouse: I’m not in a position to comment on what my opponent has or hasn’t done as Secretary of State. As I’ve said, I have a very lengthy record of public corruption investigations and I think a strong reputation for integrity in government.

Let me just give you a seconds of background on me to just to give you kind of an appreciation of where I’m coming from. I grew up the son of a Foreign Service officer who was in turn the son of a Foreign Service officer. As a little boy, I can remember being thrown over the wall from our house into the Saudi compound next door because there was rioting going on outside and my mother was scared for the safety of myself and my little brother. My father was at the Embassy trying to cope with things, so that was the decision she made to protect us.

Experiences like that kind of bond you to the government career that your family has embarked on and I am, as a general matter, extraordinarily proud of the American government. I think the American system of government is ultimately the path to peace and prosperity for our world, and that we, in the United States, have consequently a nearly sacred obligation to conduct ourselves in that system of government with the highest level of integrity so that it can in fact be an example that other countries are proud of and follow. That’s kind of my core belief. So anyone who trespasses on that, to me, is damaging something that is very significant, and very special, and I think that kind of conduct is intolerable, and that’s one of the reasons I’m running for this office.

Singer: Are there any local issues – something like a bridge or an Air Force base – that you’re going to specifically point to during your campaign?

Whitehouse: In terms of what?

Singer: I don’t know. Getting more funding for road projects, or improving schools – Rhode Island issues, or local issues.

Whitehouse: I think the most significant issues that we are facing here in Rhode Island are putting together a prescription drug benefit for seniors that does not confuse and frighten them. I can tell you from my travels among seniors and through the senior centers of Rhode Island that they are very confused and often quite frightened by that confusion.

And then making sure that the federal government comes through on the promise that George Bush broke to fund No Child Left Behind so that our public schools don’t have to strip out there arts programs, their music programs, their gifted programs, their honors programs, their science labs – anything that is not essential to the purpose of teaching to the test, as NCLB demands.

Singer: One final question. What would you like to say specifically to members of the liberal blogosphere to get them more involved in the campaign?

Whitehouse: I think the members of the liberal blogosphere have a great opportunity in this Rhode Island case. I think Bob Casey has done a great job in Pennsylvania and looks in a very strong position against Rick Santorum. That’s a seat we can and should take back. It’s my belief that Rhode Island is the second most likely win.

I invite anybody reading or listening to this to go to WhitehouseForSenate.com and participate in our website, which has a running blog. We would be really privileged, and the campaign would be assisted, by people of good faith sharing their views and helping us win this race, because as a lot of people around the country have said, it’s hard to imagine a way to win the Senate back without winning this seat in Rhode Island.

Singer: Terrific. Well thank you so much for your time and good luck.

Whitehouse: Thank you so much for your time. I appreciate this opportunity.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

For the past several months, Rhode Island Secretary of State Matt Brown has been waging a campaign for the Democratic senatorial nomination in the state. Others seeking the office include the incumbent, Republican Lincoln Chafee; Steve Laffey, the conservative Republican mayor of Cranston; and the former state Attorney General, Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse (with whom we are arranging an imminent interview).

On Monday morning, Brown and I spoke over the telephone about a range of topics related to his campaign. You can listen to the call here (warning: a 13.5 megabyte mp3), or read the rush transcript.

Jonathan Singer: As Secretary of State, you have instituted some tough regulations on lobbyists. Given the scandals surrounding Jack Abramoff, Randy “Duke” Cunningham and others in the Republican Party, to what extent will lobbying reform play in your campaign?

Matt Brown: It’s an important part of our campaign and, more importantly, it’s an important part of what I want to do after we win the election. I’ll tell you a little bit about the experience we had here and how it will translate to Washington.

When I came into office, a scandal came to light. The chairman of the Health Senate Committee was getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the big healthcare companies to block healthcare reform from even coming to a vote. And meanwhile, Rhode Islanders, like people across the country, were paying skyrocketing rate increases every year for their healthcare. People were losing healthcare coverage.

I saw that the problem was that it was possible for these kind of payments to be made by lobbyists to elected officials because the lobbyists weren’t disclosing the expenditures they were making, and that if they were forced to disclose those expenditures, of course they wouldn’t get away with these kind of payoffs to elected officials for favors.

So we did two things. One is we closed the loopholes in the lobbying law and required that lobbyists disclose all of their expenditures, not just sum up the expenditures that had been previously itemized in the law. It required them to disclose all their expenditures.

We put those reports up online so the public could see them for the first time without having to come sift through files. But equally important to strengthening the law, we got much tougher than my predecessor had been on enforcing the law. We wrote them letters, we called them – the lobbyists, that is – to demand that they actually comply and fill out these forms that disclose this information. When they didn’t, I personally called them and also went on to the floor of the House and the Senate and tracked these lobbyists down and told them they had to disclose this information.

We got most people to do it, just through perseverance and effort. But there were still some that did not disclose after that, so we, for the first time, posted the names of these delinquent lobbyists who failed to file their information on our website, so the public could see who was not complying with the regulations. And, of course, the press wrote about it, and now we have full disclosure in this state. Hopefully, that will prevent the kind of corruption that we had in the state in the past.

And we see, as I’m running now for Senate, the same kinds of problems that we had here in Rhode Island taking place in Washington, where lobbyists are not disclosing expenditures they’re making, they’re not disclosing which bills they’re even working on, they’re not disclosing their interactions with elected officials. Because of that, they’re getting away with wielding undue influence over our elected officials, and I want to bring a stop to that.

Singer: Specific to the campaign, while there have been allegations against a number of members of the Republican Party in Congress – certainly Randy “Duke” Cunningham comes to mind. Lincoln Chafee hasn’t been explicitly tied to lobbying problems. Do you think you’ll still hammer away at his connection to the Republican Party, or will this be more of a general issue?

Brown: The problem with lobbying in Washington is that the system is broken, and it’s broken for two reasons. One is that there’s very little enforcement – nearly no enforcement – of the current requirements for lobbyists to disclose their activities. And secondly, the regulations as they stand aren’t strong enough.

So it’s a similar problem to what we had in Rhode Island when I came into office, and it requires a similar fix. We need to strengthen the laws and require more disclosure by lobbyists, full disclosure. One of the things that I called for in my proposal is that the lobbyists file disclosure reports monthly. Now they only file them twice a year. You file only twice a year, you could have already influenced legislation, gotten it passed, before the public even has a chance to hold you accountable for your activities and interactions with elected officials. So we require monthly disclosure to provide much more oversight of the lobbyists activities.

We call for real enforcement. Right now, it’s the fox guarding the henhouse. You have entities that work for the Senate and the House overseeing the regulation lobbying activities with Senators and Congresspeople. So we call for granting the Justice Department the authority to enforce the lobbying regulations, as they do currently with foreign lobbyists. The Justice Department has the teeth and the muscle to actually hold these lobbyists accountable for their wrongdoing.

The third thing we do is extend the window, from one year to two years, in which elected officials and senior staff can waltz through that revolving door and become high-paying lobbyists. And the reason, of course, is that we want to prevent what we see now in Washington, which is members of Congress making decisions not for the good of the public but in the hope that when they get out of office they may be rewarded with a high-paid lobbying job.

[Cross-chatter over microphone level]

Singer: In your role as Secretary of State, you’ve worked hard to ensure that everyone votes and that every vote is counted. As Senator, what will you do to continue this?

Brown: We need to strengthen the Help America Vote Act and we need to make sure the federal government does what it was supposed to do over a year ago as a part of the Help America Vote Act, which is to set national standards for the improvement and conduct of elections in this country.

The Help America Vote Act was a response to the disasters of the Florida election. What happened with the Florida elections that it exposed, not just a problem in Florida, but a problem in states and counties and towns across the country, which is that our elections were deeply flawed, our election systems were deeply flawed. Machines not working, registrations not being counted properly, votes not being counted properly, people not being told the right place to vote – all kinds of problems in the model democracy for the world.

So the Help America Vote Act was passed to provide some funds to help solve those problems, but also to set standards for the kind of voting machines we need to have, the way to count ballots, all sorts of areas that require clear standards. The people in Washington failed to set those standards.

Here in my state, I went ahead and set very high standards for us here in Rhode Island and implemented the Act, and actually have created one of the first state-of-the-art central voter registry systems in the country, which is really the cornerstone of the strong and accurate election system – to have an accurate, computerized, updated, fraud-proof voter list. And I ran a program called R.I. Vote to increase voter turnout, including making it easier for men and women serving abroad to register to vote.

So we went ahead here and did a lot of things to improve the conduct of elections, but there are places around the country, I know, where those improvements have not been made. And it’s really a failure of the leadership in Washington to set the standards of elections.

[Cross-chatter over time remaining]

Singer: Let’s move directly to the primary campaign, some specific questions there. Your opponent, Sheldon Whitehouse, has been endorsed by the state’s two Democratic Congressmen and has more cash-on-hand than you, almost by a 2:1 margin. Can you win the Democratic nomination?

Brown: Absolutely. I’ve got a great family, I have a new baby. I wouldn’t be doing this unless I believed that we were going to win this race. There are a lot of other things in life that I enjoy doing. I’m not going to run a campaign unless I am confident that we’re going to win it.

And we’re going to win it similar to how we won my race last time. I challenged the entire political establishment in my state against a corrupt local political machine. They threw everything they had at us. And I beat the incumbent in a primary with 58 percent of the vote and won the general election with 68 percent of the vote. Now that, as you know, was the same primary in which my current primary opponent ran for governor with the full backing of the establishment and lost the primary with 38 percent of the vote.

What wins these elections in the end is earning the confidence of the voters. We have over 1,000 people signed on to my campaign committee, people from all across this state of all different backgrounds. And the reason why people are getting involved in my race and the reason we’re going to win this is that people know that the crowd that we’ve had in office for all these years hasn’t gotten the job done. That’s why people can’t find a decent school for their kids, they can’t afford their healthcare, they can’t afford to heat their homes.

So they know that we need a very different kind of leadership. They know the fact that I spent most of my adult life working directly in communities, in neighborhoods with people is a good, an important kind of experience to bring to the United States Senate, because I understand what’s going on in people’s lives.

They know the fact that, as Secretary of State, I have fought some of the most powerful interest groups – not just in the state, but in the country, including the Bush administration, to make it possible for Rhode Islanders to buy their prescription drugs from Canada; including the lobbyists; including the healthcare companies, to get an Insurance Commissioner in our state and oversee the rising healthcare costs.

And they know that this is the kind of leadership that we need in Washington, leadership that does not wait for permission from the establishment or from the interest groups to do things, but leadership that does what is right no matter how tough the pressure. And they know from my record that’s what I’ll do, and that’s why we’re going to win this race.

Singer: Do we have time for one more quick question?

[Cross-chatter over time remaining]

Brown: What’s your last question?

Singer: I just wanted to know if you had anything specific to the blogosphere about the campaign.

Brown: I’d say get involved, pay attention to it. It’s not early anymore. This is a major race. This has been identified as one of best chances we have in the country to win a Senate seat back.

Don’t wait. This really begins now. Really, the beginning of the year is when this campaign gets into high gear. This is a seat we should win, we need to win – this is a 4:1 Democrat state – and we need people all around the country to get involved, speak out, help us, come out here, feet on the street.

I know that there’s a lot of talent and a lot of energy, a lot of commitment and conviction out there in the blogosphere, and we want all of it involved in our race.

Singer: Terrific. Well thank you so much and good luck.

Brown: OK. Take care.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

This weekend, Congressman Sherrod Brown officially launched his bid for the Democratic senatorial nomination in the state of Ohio. As a part of this push, Brown wanted to not only to address Ohio voters but also speak with the liberal blogosphere. On Monday afternoon, Brown and I spoke over the telephone about a number of issues related both to the general election and the primary. You can listen to the call here (warning: a 15.5 megabyte mp3), or read the rush transcript.

Jonathan Singer: In your first congressional campaign in 1992, you took a 200-mile bicycle tour of your district to trumpet your campaign. What’s the likelihood of seeing something like that again this year, maybe statewide?

Sherrod Brown: We will, I’m sure, do creative things to get our message out. Part of the issue here is I have a full-time job in Washington during the week and will have less time to travel the roads of this state on a bicycle or walking, or something like that. I think that we’re going to be creative enough through use of the blogs, through radio and the fact that I’m going to speak out decisively and strongly on issues that I think we are going to get the media attention that we need to get our message out.

Singer: In order to get that message out, you’re going to need to get some sort of parity, or at least somewhere close to parity, on the fundraising side. I know that during that 1992 campaign, you were outspent by roughly a 1.8:1 margin, but still pulled off victory. Right now, Mike DeWine has about a 1.8:1 cash-on-hand advantage. Do you think you will be able to pull off the same success despite the dollar lead of his?

Brown: Yeah. First of all, if we have enough money, it doesn’t matter how much he spends, because we need enough to get our message out. That’s our goal. I don’t need to outspend him. I know that the drug industry will spend two or three million dollars against me, separate from what Mike DeWine spends. I expect the oil industry, probably insurance companies, to spend another million or so each. They will come into this state spending millions of dollars under a different name. They aren’t going to say, “The drug companies just beat up Sherrod Brown in an ad,” they’re going to say, “Paid for by ‘Citizens for Better Medicare’” or some group like that. That’s the way they’ll hide, that’s the way they’ll mask their coming in and running these sleazy attack ads because I stand up to the drug company on the Medicare bill, and the insurance industry, and stood up to the oil interests on the energy bill.

But I’m not concerned about it – I’d rather they didn’t, of course – but I’m not so concerned about it as long as we have enough money to get our message out. My message is going to be strong enough that I think it’s going to cut through a lot of the noise of typical political ads. We’re going to be creative, we’re going to be bold. We’re going to say, “Who’s side are you on? Do you want a Senator who’s on the side of the drug industry and the side of the insurance companies, that does the oil companies’ bidding, that does whatever President Bush wants? Or do you want a Senator that’s going to represent your interests rather than those of the drug companies and the President of the United States, regardless of party?”

Singer: I’ll get back to the prescription drug bill in a minute, but Mike DeWine raised roughly a million dollars for his son’s special election campaign, and there were wide reports of his twisting arms of lobbyists and the business community to raise money for his son. So he was really able to pull that money out of there. Are you going to hammer away at that kind of deep connection to lobbyists?

Brown: I don’t know. I’ve heard complaints from people who said that Mike DeWine put the arm on them for his son. But rather than talk about his fundraising, I’d much rather talk about Mike DeWine being an obedient servant, if you will, to the President of the United States. When the President said we’re going to attack Iraq, Mike DeWine essentially said, “Whatever you say, boss.” When George Bush said, “I want to privatize Social Security,” Mike DeWine said, “I’m already there, Mr. President. I’ve already introduced a bill.” When George Bush told Mike DeWine and the Senate that he wanted to push through an outsourcing agreement with Central America to cut costs for large corporations, Mike DeWine was one of his chief cheerleaders.

Those are the issues I’m going to talk about, more than Mike DeWine twisting arms for his son’s campaign. I think there are connections between those oil interests and drug companies and… I’m not saying Mike DeWine votes that way because he gets drug company money, but I do say that the drug companies write big checks to Mike DeWine and say, “Well done, faithful servant.”

Singer: How much do you think you’ll bring in the conviction of Governor Taft and investigations into Bob Ney and Deborah Pryce into this election?

Brown: I think the public wants to clean house in Ohio. They’ve had enough of the culture of corruption. But they’ve also had enough of the failures of the Bush-Taft-DeWine team on education, higher education, primary and secondary education; the failures of the Bush-Taft-DeWine team on healthcare, the cost of prescription drugs, the cost of energy; and enough of the Bush-Taft-DeWine team on job loss. We’ve lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs alone in my state during Mike DeWine’s second term, during George Bush’s two terms. I think the voters have had enough of that.

We’re going to talk about issues. We’re going to talk about what they’ve done wrong. We’re also going to talk very prescriptively, very boldly about what we should do instead, on trade agreements, on the cost of prescription drugs, on healthcare, on education.

Singer: You brought up a lot of national issues. You also brought up the local issue of jobs. What other local issues will you be bringing to the table in this election cycle?

Brown: Local issues we’ll talk about… I guess I haven’t thought through the local issues as much. We’ll talk in terms of education…

Let me answer it this way, Jonathan. In Ohio, or any other state, what the federal government does on issues like Medicaid, education, economic development – especially manufacturing – has so much impact on state government and what states are doing, too. We need a cooperation that George Bush and Bob Taft aren’t very good at, a cooperation on Medicaid, on revitalizing manufacturing, on education.

The state government increases tuition for higher ed. way beyond what they should. At the same time the federal government in Mike DeWine and George Bush cut student loans and grants. So education is not affordable for middle class kids in Ohio in Ohio’s state universities, and the loans and grants are inaccessible because of federal inaction or because of federal decisions.

That cooperation is so important, and Bob Taft and Mike DeWine – even though they’re part of the same leadership team. They seem to do nothing to help one another.

Singer: Just a few more issues before we briefly move on to the primary itself. You brought up the Medicare prescription drug bill. I think it was The New York Times that had an article in the last couple of days talking about a backlash, especially in “purple” areas of the country: seniors not knowing what they need to do, or being left out, or the prices really not coming down in the new program. You voted no, Mike DeWine voted yes. Is there any way to fix it? And what would you do if you were elected to Washington to fix it?

Brown: The first thing that George Bush and Mike DeWine have to do is end their addiction to drug company money. Once you do that, then you can put on the table all of the issues that we need to address to bring down the cost of prescription drugs.

There is a prohibition in the Medicare drug bill on allowing the government to negotiate drug prices on the behalf of 30 million or 40 million Medicare beneficiaries. That’s the most important change to make. But the drug industry is not going to let their acolytes – those elected officials they’ve helped so much – make any major changes that might in some ways make a dent in drug company profits.

Singer: Looking at the tax cut bill, the House version hasn’t come to the floor, so you haven’t had a chance to vote on that version yet. But Mike DeWine voted yes to the Senate’s version. George Voinovich and two other Republicans voted no for a number of reasons, including increases to the deficit. With the growing deficit, would you be voting yes or no on this upcoming House vote? Or what would you be doing different on taxes?

Brown: I’ll vote no on that. When we have a budget deficit like this, when we’re spending a billion and a half dollars a week in Iraq, when the President is cutting programs that affect working families, middle class families, that affect the poor, we have no business giving tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent of the country, and that’s what this bill does.

Singer: Where do you stand on the Murtha resolution? Not the fake Murtha resolution that came up, but the real Murtha plan, that he laid out?

Brown: I have sponsored legislation – I’m not sure when we introduced it, three months ago, maybe; most of us who sponsored this legislation had voted against the original war resolution – that would say that the President must submit to Congress and the American people by December 31st a winning exit strategy, and that troop withdrawal must begin October 1st – but an orderly, safe troop withdrawal must begin by October 1st of 2006.

That’s the direction I think we should go. It’s pretty clear to me when I hear Condoleezza Rice say that she believes we’re going to be in Iraq ten more years, that we need to act and begin to get our troops out, partly because it’s so divisive for our country, partly because we have seen that this war is costing a billion and a half dollars a week, and partly because, as we saw in the recent 9/11 report, this war is breeding more terrorism and making us more unsafe as a nation.

Singer: Let’s look at the primary, just briefly. This is the place where the blogosphere is very impassioned on one side or the other. Here’s the difficult question: Why did it take so long to make the decision to jump in the race?

Brown: I was not working on any politician’s timetable when I made the decision to run. The first six months of the year, I devoted my entire professional life to the defeat of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. We lost by one vote – two votes, technically, one vote in reality (if one vote had switched it would have been defeated). It passed in the middle of the night only after the President cut all kinds of deals and made all kinds of promises to members, all kinds of pork, whatever they did.

Then during the next couple of months, I told Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer I could not say yes on their timetable. I needed more time. I had some family issues, which I’m not going to discuss, with my daughters and my wife, and just where we were in our personal lives at that time. And I was not able to make that decision, and told Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer I couldn’t by their timetable in August. If that meant they needed an answer, then the answer was no at that time.

By October, my one daughter had gotten married, my other two daughters were either back in school or back in work, and my wife’s work situation was such that we could go forward and make this race. And I plan to win.

Singer: One of the big issues that separates your competitor Paul Hackett from Mike DeWine is the issue of gun control, and a lot people think that that’s an issue that he might be able to siphon off some Republican votes, because Mike DeWine is more supportive of gun control laws. How do you stack up on that front? Do you think you’ll be able to capitalize on the discontent on the right like Paul Hackett might be able to?

Brown: I think that my position on hunting and fishing, and my advocacy for conservation and access to lands, and clean water issues and environmental, but especially conservation issues… What I’ve worked on in my time in the Health and Environment Subcommittee, and my work on issues of conservation and the environmentally, generally, make my candidacy attractive to grandfathers who want to take their grandkids fishing.

I grew up working on a farm. I don’t hunt myself, or fish myself. I’ve gone fishing from time to time, but I’m not a regular fisherman by a long shot. That’s the kind of family values that are important: that grandparents can take their grandsons and granddaughters canoeing and fishing. I like whitewater rafting. I’ve done things like that. As I said, I don’t hunt or fish. But I think I can talk passionately as a Senate candidate about what the outdoors means to people, and I want to encourage people to do that.

Singer: And if there’s just one more thing that you’d like to tell the host of members of the blogosphere who are very strongly in support of Paul Hackett? What would you want to tell them to bring them into the fold, whether it’s during the primary or the (general election)?

Brown: I was an early opponent of the Iraq War. I’ve had one consistent position on the Iraq War. I’m not critical Paul as a person by a long shot, but Paul has taken at least three different positions on the Iraq War.

But most importantly, I’ve been a standup progressive elected official with a proven record of fighting corruption in this country and of fighting for economic and social justice. I’ve proven that I will stand up no matter what criticism I get, on the war, on trade issues. I’ll stand up to the drug companies, stand up to the oil industry. There’s no doubt that I’ll do that in the Senate. I proved that as Secretary of State.

When I was Secretary of State in the 1980s, people in Ohio knew that their vote counted, they know that the elections would be fair, and they knew that they had a Secretary of State that wanted them to vote, to go out and register to vote, to encourage people to vote, not a Secretary of State about whom nobody has any confidence. That shows the kind of public official I’ve been

Singer: Well, terrific. Thank you so much for your time, and good luck.

Brown: Thanks, Jonathan. Thanks for what you’re doing.

Singer: You’re welcome. Have a great day.

[THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.]

This week, I accepted an offer to become the chief weekend blogger at MyDD.com, a leading political weblog that consistently receives 30,000 or more pageviews every day, or about 20,000 daily readers. Starting tomorrow, I will be writing for MyDD every Friday, Saturday and Sunday, providing analysis primarily on campaigns and elections.

Naturally, this will decrease the amount of time that I will have to devote to Basie!. But this is not the only new item in my life.

In addition to the increased workload that is expected of student towards the end of every semester and the added responsibilities required of seniors, I am preparing to take the LSAT in order to apply for law school, an endeavor that both asks for, and deserves, more of my focus. As a result, for the time being, I am going to have to drastically curtail my activities on this blog.

Basie! has been going strong now for more than a year and a half, a period that has seen over 3,200 posts, including interviews with four major party presidential candidates, two Congressmen, two Governors, ten Senators, and many more politicians and journalists. During this time, Basie! has received nearly 115,000 page views, and has been mentioned in some of the most influential political websites, including National Journal's The Hotline and Daily Kos.

I could not have achieved any of this without the support of you, the reader. I am both thankful and humbled by the response you have given to this site over the past several months.

I hope that you would consider revisiting this site if and when I resume my stewardship in earnest -- perhaps as early as a month from now. In addition, I hope you will consider making the move with me to MyDD tomorrow.

Once again, thank you for your continued support of Basie!

Yesterday, The Washington Post's duo of Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig set off somewhat of a firestorm with a front page article reporting that The Post's Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward had testified in the Plame investigation that he had been the recipient of the leak -- but not from Scooter Libby. The New York Times' Todd S. Purdum does some further reporting on the story and comes up with the following:

The disclosure that a current or former Bush administration official told Bob Woodward of The Washington Post more than two years ago that the wife of a prominent administration critic worked for the C.I.A. threatened Wednesday to prolong a politically damaging leak investigation that the White House had hoped would soon be contained.

[...]

Mr. Woodward said he provided sworn testimony to Mr. Fitzgerald on Monday, only after his original source went to the prosecutor to disclose their two-year-old conversation. But because Mr. Woodward said that source had still not authorized him to disclose his or her name, he set off a frantic new round of guessing about who that source might be and a wave of public denials by spokesmen for possible suspects.

A senior administration official said that neither President Bush himself, nor his chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., nor his counselor, Dan Bartlett, was Mr. Woodward's source. So did spokesmen for former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell; the former director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet; and his deputy, John E. McLaughlin.

A lawyer for Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff who has acknowledged conversations with reporters about the case and remains under investigation, said Mr. Rove was not Mr. Woodward's source.

Mr. Cheney did not join the parade of denials. A spokeswoman said he would have no comment on a continuing investigation. Several other officials could not be reached for comment.

Editor & Publisher reads the Purdum story as follows.

In an article for Thursday's New York Times, reporter Todd Purdum, through the process of elimination, leaves Vice President Cheney still standing as a high ranking Bush administration official who has not denied being Bob Woodward's newly revealed key source in the Plame/CIA leak case.

This would certainly add some credence to the theory that Libby's alleged perjury and obstruction of justice were attempts to inhibit the special prosecutor from reaching Cheney with the probe.

Despite a relative dearth of coverage in the past few days, the case against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is still trodding along, as The New York Times reports.

Texas prosecutors in the criminal case against Representative Tom DeLay issued a subpoena on Wednesday for records of transactions between his national political action committee and a political committee run by his successor as House majority leader, Roy Blunt of Missouri.

The subpoena, issued in Austin, the Texas capital, asked for all records from Mr. DeLay's committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, about its contributions from 2000 to 2002 to Mr. Blunt's committee, Rely on Your Own Beliefs Fund, and to the state Republican Party in Missouri, where Mr. Blunt's son is governor.

The subpoena offered no explanation of why prosecutors wanted the records, although news reports have recently questioned why thousands of dollars raised by Mr. DeLay and his committee to entertain delegates at the 2000 Republican convention were shifted to Mr. Blunt's committee.

Mr. Blunt's committee made a $10,000 contribution at about the same time to a charity controlled by Mr. DeLay.

DeLay, of course, is not the only Republican whose actions are coming under scrutiny these days. Sheryl Gay Stolberg reports for The Times that there are new calls to broaden the investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

A consumer advocacy group called Wednesday for the Securities and Exchange Commission to expand its inquiry into the stock trades of Senator Bill Frist, the Republican leader, saying it had uncovered "questionable transactions lucrative to Frist family members."

The commission is already investigating the senator's decision to sell all of his stock in HCA Inc., the healthcare giant founded by his father and brother, shortly before the price hit a peak and then plummeted. Mr. Frist, whose records, along with company's, have been subpoenaed, has repeatedly said that he has done nothing wrong.

Now the advocacy group, Public Citizen, says financial disclosure documents filed by Mr. Frist reveal several additional "exceedingly well-timed transactions" made by trusts that manage investments for his three sons. All involve healthcare companies that at one point had ties to the Frist family.

"We're not sure what this means," said Frank Clemente, director of Congress Watch, Public Citizen's government watchdog arm. But, he added, "It has the smell of the HCA stock trading, and we just thought it was important to bring this to light."

Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo is currently soliciting funds one or two reporters to report exclusively on Republican scandals such as those afflicting DeLay and Frist.