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.]