A Bluestem Prairie

Rochester Post Bulletin: Walz, Kline ready for debate, vote on Iraq

The Rochester Post Bulletin's Ed Felker reports from Washington:

Reps. Tim Walz and John Kline expect to vote on an Iraq war resolution this week, with the two likely to take opposite sides.

Walz, a Democrat from Mankato who campaigned against the war, expects to support the non-binding resolution, while Kline, a Republican from Lakeville, plans to oppose it.

The resolution language was issued Monday by House Democrats, and states plainly that while Congress supports the American soldiers fighting in Iraq, "Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq." . . .

. . . Walz, a retired Minnesota National guardsman who represents the 1st Congressional District, made no specific statement, but his spokeswoman, Meredith Salsbery, confirmed he would support the Democratic language.

From the New York Times, the text of the resolution:

“Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.”

More from the national press here in the New York Times and here in the Washington Post.

Back in the district, there's an example of the American people's support of the troops: in Jackson and Fairmont, local 4-H groups help with the kids of National Guard soldiers deployed overseas, according to the Daily Globe:

Alexi Schafer giggled as she twirled the handle on the foosball table and the ball went racing for the end pocket Sunday afternoon at the National Guard Armory in Jackson.

Schafer was one of nearly a dozen children enjoying games and crafts with 4-H Ambassadors and leaders as the Jackson-Fairmont National Guard Unit’s Family Readiness Group (FRG) took part in its monthly meeting just a couple of doors away.

Since December 2005, 4-H’ers from Jackson and Martin counties have provided child care services for the FRG as part of Operation Military Kids. Statewide, there are more than 20 county 4-H groups volunteering their time to children whose moms or dads are serving in Iraq.

“We provide activities — games, songs and crafts — to keep them busy while their families are in meetings,” said Kia Harries, Regional Extension Educator in 4-H, as she watched over children playing at the foosball and pool tables Sunday. The FRG rotates each month between the Fairmont Armory and the Jackson Armory and, depending on where they are meeting, 4-H groups from the host county are in charge of organizing activities for the two-hour session. . . .

The Globe's letters section reprints some praise in Iraq of Minnesota's National Guard.

Reflections on the surge in Southern Minnesota

Today's editorial in the Mankato Free Press looks forward to the House debate on the surge:

On the debate about the Iraq war resolution debate, the first question that needs to be put to rest is this: Is it reasonable and helpful that Congress should make a statement on President Bush’s troop buildup at this time?

Yes. The surge comes at a time when America is weary of war and highly skeptical of success, and it is ludicrous to assume that congressional leaders should keep silent as a crucial new phase begins. A strong statement by the Senate and House, rather than sabotage the buildup and discourage the troops, could even improve the situation by emphasizing America’s disappointment with the conduct of the war thus far, while sending messages where messages need to be sent — to the White House, that it will be held accountable, and to the Iraqi government, that it cannot continue to count on U.S. support if it will not take on more responsibility.

But before the war resolution debate begins again this week, a word of caution. Any resolution should be crafted in such a way that considers the sensibilities of American troops engaged in the fight. Congress should be leery of approving language unduly political. If Democrats, with the support of a few Republicans, want to challenge future maneuvers in Iraq — by threatening a cut-off date for funding the war, or by ordering troops out of Iraq within a year, or to cap the number of troops allowed — they should instead exercise caution and patience. Those kinds of decisions can wait. . . .

Go read the whole thing.

The Washington Post reports today about expectations surrounding the debate:

Three days of intense debate over the Iraq war begins in the House today, with Democrats planning to propose a narrowly worded rebuke of President Bush's troop buildup and Republicans girding for broad defections on their side.

Both parties will jockey for prime time before the C-SPAN cameras, with leaders claiming the best time slots and rank-and-file members trying to make the most of the five minutes each will be allotted. If all 435 House members use their five minutes, debate will last 36 hours. It is likely to begin by late morning and run until midnight tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday. A vote is expected Friday.

After watching their counterparts in the Senate stall and sputter last week, unable to agree on ground rules for a debate on Iraq, House leaders are forging ahead, determined to send a statement to the White House to condemn a troop buildup.

Democrats will file a nonbinding resolution against the Bush plan while Republicans will try to broaden the dispute and seed doubt in the Democratic approach. Although Senate Republicans were able to block debate on a resolution condemning Bush's war policies last week, it will be much easier for Democrats in the House to bring a measure to the floor.

The article recalls the last debate time the House debated an Iraq resolution:

The last time an Iraq resolution came before the House was in June, when the Republicans controlled Congress. After two days of largely partisan debate, the House easily approved a measure declaring that the United States must complete "the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq," without setting "an arbitrary date for the withdrawal" of troops. Forty-two Democrats bucked their leadership to join a virtually united GOP. But this debate will be different, lawmakers from both parties agree.

As do we: the representative from Southern Minnesota, for instance, probably won't be scolding his colleagues about "going wobbly."  Tim Walz, instead, is known for asking questions on behalf of the troops.  His statement about the surge from last week.

Another sign of the times is the headline itself on the WaPo article: GOP Expects Defections as House Debates Iraq Resolution.

When the text of the resolution and any statement Tim Walz makes about it are available, we will link to both. Stay tuned.

The Hill: Democrats poised to challenge Bush

More coverage about Bush's appearance at the retreat in The Hill's article House Dems poised to challenge Bush by Jonathan E. Kaplan:

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. – Signaling how the political power dynamic has changed since the November midterm election, President Bush will take five questions from House Democrats after he speaks here Saturday morning, said Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.).

Bush has not addressed the Democratic Caucus at their retreat since 2001 when he first took office. House Democrats submitted questions, and in conjunction with the White House staff, Emanuel said he would choose five of them. Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a freshman, said he was selected and will ask Bush about the treatment of military veterans.

The Democratic representatives are having some other guests over in addition to the president:

Democrats have heard from an array of speakers. The biggest attraction so far has been former President Clinton, who squeezed in an appearance before attending his stepfather's funeral.

He spoke well into the evening about energy policy, healthcare, and Iraq, said several lawmakers.

Governors Eliot Spitzer (D-N.Y.), Janet Napolitano (D- Ariz.), Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kan.) and Deval Patrick (D-Mass.) and Ret. Marine Corp Gen. Joseph Hoar also spoke and took questions on Friday.

Author and historian Garry Wills, journalist Amy Sullivan and Tanya Clay of the People for the American Way discussed religion and politics.

Rochester Post Bulletin editorial: President has right to manage Iraq war

Today's editorial in the Rochester Post Bulletin observes President has right to manage Iraq war.  There's no way to excerpt any part of it without possibly distorting the editorial board's meanng, so here's the whole text:

There is common ground on Iraq. Any reasonable person wants the United States to achieve a successful outcome.

President Bush's decision to increase the number of U.S. troops committed to the fight in Iraq is a technique he believes will achieve success.

Naysayers point to the Democratic victory in the last election as an example that the country has turned away from Bush's policies. Instead, those opposed to the escalation argue, Bush should honor this new turn of public opinion that has come to be generally understood as fewer, not more, troops and an earlier, not later, timetable of drawdown.

But for President Bush, the election that mattered was 2004, not 2006. It was then that the country gave him its affirmation to continue to carry out his Iraq war policies -- policies of war that were first authorized by Congress.

What is the president to do? Is it better if he walks away from his belief that a successful outcome can, indeed, be had? Is he to turn away from the last two years of his term simply because the winds of public opinion have changed? The answer is no.

The country does not benefit from a president who lacks the courage of his conviction. Bush is pressing ahead toward the outcome, both immediate and historic.

U.S. Rep. Tim Walz disagrees with Bush's policies and says Congress has a continuing role to play in defining the parameters of the war.

Walz, though, does not suggest that Congress should play its constitutional trump card and cut funding for the war effort as a way to wither Bush's war policies. Walz calls any budget-cutting act a tool of last resort.

Instead, the 1st District congressman will join Democrats by, using his words, "not reining in (the president) but sharing (congressional) expertise." Walz believes Congress should provide constitutionally mandated oversight without micromanaging.

He acknowledges Bush's presidential authority and personal determination to manage the Iraq war, noting that he, as a member of the Democratic majority, will not likely be able to persuade the president to change direction in Iraq. Walz believes only Republicans might be able to influence the president.

None of this is to ignore the mounting evidence that the country's Iraq policies are in trouble. The threat of failure is there for all to see.

As such, Walz and the Democrats are right to press the Bush administration hard with demands for results. But Congress and the country should understand that the Constitution gives the president, not Congress, the authority to manage a war once it has been authorized.

AP Wire: Walz promises hard look at Bush's budget request for Iraq

The Associated Press's Frederic Frommer talked to Tim Walz about the presidents budget request:

WASHINGTON - On the eve of his swearing-in, Rep.-elect Tim Walz said Wednesday that he will review President Bush's $100 billion-plus request to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with a skeptical eye.

"It's pretty disingenuous to say you want a change in Iraq, and you're not willing to ask those hard questions because everyone knows that there's a fear of being painted as not supporting the troops," Walz, D-Minn., said in an interview in his new office.

Walz, an Army National Guard veteran who made a new approach to Iraq a central theme in his congressional campaign, will be sworn in Thursday.

Bush's budget request, to be submitted next month, is expected to pass because members of Congress are reluctant to block money for overseas troops.

But Walz said Democrats can't fall into that trap.

"I know that their fear is, in the next election, that we're going to be painted as not supportive of the troops, and they're going to use that vote against us," he said. "I care about getting re-elected, but I didn't come here to look over my shoulder. I think I was sent here with a message to ask the questions about Iraq. Obviously, that's Congress' main role."

He added: "I know from experience - 24 years of experience in how this works - not all defense appropriations go to protecting soldiers."

Congress has shirked its oversight responsibility the last few years, Walz argued.

"What have we received for our hundreds of billions of dollars?" he asked.

Walz said that he wants to know where every penny of Bush's budget request is going. If the plan calls for spending money in the same way, without accountability, and to support an escalation of troops, Walz said he'd probably vote against it.

"I don't feel locked into voting for every single appropriation for the military, based on what has been spun as, 'If you don't vote for this, you're not supporting the troops,'" he said. "The American public is sick of that. They know that's not true."

Walz said that seems to be a bigger problem for members who never served in the military.

"Those members who didn't serve in the military have every right to question the same way I do," he said. "I don't have any special privilege just because I served in the military."

Walz said that's because he's a firm believer in civilian control of the military.

"I think Congress capitulated that," he said. "I said it during the campaign, and I need to have the courage and will have the courage to say it now."

PiPress: Minnesota lawmakers encouraged, cautious

The PiPress runs with Frederick Frommer's AP reporting:

Most current and incoming members of the Minnesota congressional delegation said Wednesday they were encouraged by a high-level commission's report on Iraqi policy, although some Republicans reacted cautiously to calls for diplomacy with Iran and Syria.

The report called for a diplomatic attempt to stabilize Iraq with the aim of withdrawing most U.S. combat troops by early 2008. It said that President Bush should engage Syria and Iran in negotiations over the county's future.

Sen.-elect Amy Klobuchar said the findings by the Iraq Study Group are similar to what she called for in the campaign.

"I hope that this report will now be a catalyst for change," said Klobuchar, a Democrat.

Klobuchar said the announcement Wednesday that more than 600 members of the Minnesota Air National Guard would deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan nearly next year "reminds us of how important it is to get this policy right. In that way, for our state, it's very timely."

The man Klobuchar is replacing, Democrat Mark Dayton, said he agreed with the "need to end the blank check for Iraqi government."

"This report really properly chastises the (Bush) administration for its narrow-mindedness," said Dayton, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Hopefully, the administration will see the light."

The state's other senator, Republican Norm Coleman, said he agreed with the call for transitioning U.S. forces from combat to support.

"These recommendations reflect my long-standing belief that American troop withdrawal must coincide with the fulfillment of appropriate benchmarks, not arbitrary deadlines," he said.

But Coleman said he was skeptical of the call to engage Iran and Syria.

"Both of these countries have actively supported the insurgency in Iraq, and each would likely demand an untenable trade-off in exchange for their participation," he said.

Rep. John Kline, a Republican who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, said his biggest concerns with the report were in that area.

"We don't want to be in the business of making a deal with Syria and Iran," he said. "I'm not optimistic about that."

But Kline said he agreed with the overall call for change in policy.

"Many of us recognize that we must succeed in Iraq," he said. "It's also true that we have to change something in the tactics."

Rep.-elect Keith Ellison expressed skepticism that the report will lead to a dramatic change in course. The Democrat called for stepped up congressional oversight hearings on the report and on developing an exit strategy.

"It is clear the study group has failed to recommend a hard target date for redeploying or withdrawing U.S. troops," Ellison said. "I'm disappointed there is no call for withdrawal as soon as possible as part of a broader exit strategy."

Rep.-elect Tim Walz, a Democrat and Army National Guard veteran, said he supported the call for regional diplomacy.

"I am a person who believes that you engage everyone," he said.

Rep. Betty McCollum agreed.

"We need to engage all the countries in the region," said McCollum, a Democrat. "This is about regional stability."

Democrat Jim Oberstar endorsed the report's call for giving more responsibility to the Iraqis.

"We must change the primary mission of U.S. troops in Iraq from combat to training and support, and Iraq's government should be required to meet specific benchmarks to improve security in the country," he said.

Republican Jim Ramstad had a similar take.

"We absolutely need to accelerate the turnover of the security of Iraq to the Iraqi security forces," said Ramstad.

Rep.-elect Michele Bachmann, a Republican, said, "I was pleased the Iraq Study Group recognized that it is not in the best interest of the United States to set arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal."

The Strib also reports here.

The Walz camp put out a press release:

After reviewing the Iraq Study Group’s report, Congressman-elect Tim Walz said, “I am encouraged by these recommendations and I believe they will open the door to a meaningful debate on Iraq.  My colleagues and I are ready to work with President Bush to bring about an appropriate drawdown and I believe the Iraq Study Group’s work will help to bring about that result.”

“I’d like to extend my gratitude to the members of the Iraq Study Group for undertaking this important work and for providing us with such a thorough report to consider,” said Walz.

Walz, who is the first Command Sgt. Major to serve in the United States House of Representatives, spent 24 years in the Army National Guard before retiring in the spring of 2005 to run for Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District seat.  During his campaign, Walz published a whitepaper detailing his plan for Iraq, which is a remarkably similar, simplified version of the report published today by the Iraq Study Group.

Walz’s whitepaper focuses on two of the key pillars of today’s report: the need to engage a comprehensive regional security force in Iraq and the necessary capacity building that includes significant improvements in Iraq’s most basic infrastructure.

Click here to view the Walz whitepaper.

“I’m optimist about the opportunity to openly engage in a discussion about the future of Iraq and the American involvement in that future,” said Walz.  “These recommendations hold a great deal of promise and I’m excited that they’re available for us to consider as Congress begins this badly-needed debate.”

Austin Daily Herald:Bush should listen to Iraq commission

Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that Representative-elect Tim Walz was encouraged by early descriptions of the Iraq Commission's findings. 

The Austin Daily Herald thinks Bush should listen to the commission:

When a bipartisan commission on U.S. policy in Iraq releases its recommendations next week, President Bush should take their recommendations seriously, not immediately dismiss them, as he has done when discussing the commission thus far.

The group is expected to recommend a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, which contradict's the Bush administration's current policy. However, dismissing that idea without much serious contemplation, as he did recently while visiting Jordan, is too hasty.

Reversing the “stay the course” doctrine would cost Bush in political capital, and that may be why his administration is reluctant to deviate from its policy. However, all options to win this war need to be examined.

MN-01 Tuesday night free movie: "Iraq for Sale" in Austin

The Brave New Theater project is showing Robert Greenwald's  "Iraq for Sale" for free in Austin on Tuesday night. The headline for the event proclaims: "Elect Tim Walz to Congress to halt war profiteers."

Here's the info from the website:

WHAT: Austin, Minnesota screening of Iraq for Sale WHEN:       Tuesday, October 17 2006 07:00 PM     TICKET PRICE: FREE, RSVP required below  Expect a lively discussion to follow screening and organinzing to turn outrage about war profiteering into political action over two short weeks leading to a close election of a war veteran to the US Congress in our swing district, where every vote really counts! HOSTED BY:       Senator John Kerry.

WHERE: Austin Public Library Conference Room
323 4th Avenue NE
Austin, Minnesota 55912
Map & Driving Directions

DIRECTIONS: off Main Street, past Paramount, across from Labor Center, parking leads into entrance, turn left for conference room w/ TV & kitchen for refreshments

CONTACT:   Chandler Harrison "Harry" Stevens, Norma Wangen, Pat Nicolai   for more details.  

The notice says that the event is hosted by John Kerry.  I've emailed one of the contacts to see if those duties are performed through the miracle of technology (likely).

More on Greenwald's movie at the official website.  An article about Greenwald's producer and the Brave New Theater project is found at here on Alternet.

Rochester Post Bulletin: MN-01 race shaping up to be "a dogfight"

Today's Rochester Post Bulletin reports that "Gutknecht, Walz bring in heavy hitters."  As BSP has earlier noted, the heavy-hitters are John Murtha and Newt Gingrich.  Reporter Matthew Stolle outlines the case:

GOP Rep. Gil Gutknecht and DFL challenger Tim Walz brought in a couple of political heavyweights on Sunday in the latest sign that the U.S. congressional race is shaping up to be a dogfight.

Rep. John Murtha, a 16-term Pennsylvania Democrat and former Marine, stumped for Walz during a political rally at the home of a southwest Rochester couple. Meanwhile, former GOP Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was the main attraction at a Gutknecht fundraiser in the Radisson Hotel in downtown Rochester.

Their speeches and comments reflected the political divide over the four-year-old Iraq war and its relationship to the war on terrorism. They also underscored the issue's prominence in political races across the country, including Minnesota's 1st Congressional District, where the 12-year incumbent Gutknecht is fending off a challenge by political newcomer Walz.

Regular readers of Bluestem Prairie have learned how important this issue is for people in the Fighting First, from the headlines generated by Gutknecht's wobbling on the issue to letters-to-the-editor in newspapers across the district.

Stolle leads off with Murtha's afternoon appearance:

In Rochester, Murtha said the public was tired of what he called the Republican-controlled "rubber stamp Congress" and was eager for change. The rally was at the home of Sarah and John Pacchetti of southwest Rochester, the same couple who hosted Sen. John Kerry when he ran for president in 2004.

"I see an intensity out there I have not seen for years. People want a change. They want somebody to speak up like Tim," Murtha said about Walz, who stood next to him on a porch overlooking a crowd of an estimated 60 people.

Murtha catapulted to the national stage with his call for U.S. troops to leave Iraq. Murtha said American troops did a "marvelous" job in the early stages of the war, but were let down by political leaders who were wrong about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction and having connections to al-Qaida. The Bush administration also failed to adequately plan for the occupation, he said.

He said that by any number of measures, the war in Iraq is a failed policy: Iraq produces less oil and electricity now than it did under Saddam Hussein and incidents of violence, much of it Iraqi-on-Iraqi attacks, have soared, while America spends $8 billion a month on the conflict.

"I see no way that it can be won militarily. It's a police action. And we have to revert to diplomatic effort in a police action," Murtha said.

Gingrich met with the press before a $1000-a-plate fundraiser at the Marriott.  As we predicted, Gingrich sounded the terrorism alarm:

. . . he said a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq would spell disaster for America and a bloodbath for Iraq.

"My question would be: What signal does he think it sends to all our allies around the world who watch the United States abandon an ally and walk out as (Iraqis) get slaughtered, which they will," Gingrich said.

"Gingrich said an American withdrawal would effectively turn the Persian Gulf over to an Iran desirous of nuclear weapons that "wants to defeat the United States and eliminate Israel from the face of the earth."

While Democrats have argued that the war in Iraq has been a distraction from the war on terrorism, Gingrich says Iraq is part of a larger global threat. An anti-American coalition is emerging, composed of such countries as Iran, North Korea, Somalia, Syria and Venezuela. In an age of nuclear and biological weapons, America's response should be not to "stay the course," but to redesign the war and the country's strategy for the threats ahead, he said.

"I believe if we mobilize now, that we still have a huge net advantage over our enemies. But if we wait and let them get nuclear weapons, and wait and let them get better organized, we're going to be potentially in a Third World War," he said.

It's unclear from the article if Gingrich was talking about Murtha or Walz sending a signal.  Stolle points outs the policy differences between Murtha and Walz:

While the Iraq war has opened a political divide between Democrats and Republicans, it has tended to obscure tensions within each party. While Murtha has called for a military withdrawal from Iraq, Walz has not. Walz, a high school teacher and retired National Guard Command Sergeant Major, reiterated his call for "robust diplomacy" as a critical element in bringing the troops home.

"I can tell you for certain the one plan that's not working is the Bush administration's plan. That one is a failure," Walz said.

MN-01 Monday Morning: Murtha, letters, netroots and more

VETERANS FOR WALZ: MURTHA VISIT
We attended the Veterans for Walz house party in Rochester yesterday afternoon and sat in on the press conference with Walz and Murtha along with Matt Stolle of the Rochester Post-Bulletin, Larry Dobson of the Dodge Center Star Record,  Leigh Pomeroy of Vox Verax/Minnesota Monitor and others.

Since we left the party to meet with aRochester resident who had useful background information about DM & E, we didn't get home until late. We'll post our impressions and some photos later in the day as time permits. 

In the meantime,  Charley at Across the Great Divide and The Wege share their coverage of the Rowley-Murtha rally in Rosemount.  From the sounds of it, Murtha's main message about Iraq and the fight against terrorism was consistent at both speaking events, while his praise of Walz focused on Tim's military experience and leadership.

Walz spoke about the need for vision and solid plans for important issues such as Iraq, education and health care, and Gutknecht's lack thereof.  Looks like his team has visited his opponent's "issues" page.

OLLIE OX UPDATE: Leigh Pomeroy provides excellent coverage of the veterans for Walz houseparty at Minnesota Monitor.

WINONA DAILY NEWS LTE: DO YOU FEEL SAFER?
Robert Hively-Johnson of Winona writes to condemn the rules for detaining and trying noncombatant terrorists.  He concludes with this observation about the political strategy underlying the proposal:

At first blush, what the administration suggests might be cited as a good example of what people mean by constant conservative “over-reaching.” Rather than getting a good feel of what Congress and others might think about a plan and finding common ground, they blunder on and worry about the fallout later, like Iraq. But that is the wrong assumption.

The Bushies did not over-reach. Not this time. This is a contrived gambit specifically designed to bait liberals into react and be labeled “soft on terror.” In other words, despite spin about detention and torture preventing attacks, this administration is really toying with America’s security and safety, playing fear-mongering politics. Well, Duh-bya, even conservatives dare not tamper with our constitutional rights.

Think about the string of screw-ups since Bush and company took over. Think Katrina. Think Iraq; all the casualties. Now, think about what Bush did not do, when informed about the Trade Center destruction. (No reaction. Decider absent.) If Bush and the neocon trademark is incompetent governance, how is America safer? What does common sense suggest?

CHICAGO TRIBUNE: WIKI EDITING, THE STORY LIVES ON
The Chicago Tribune picks up Elizabeth Austin's column, "Hold the `Wikiality,' please pass the truth" which was originally published online at faithfuldemocrats.com. Money quote:

For me, this is literally an article of faith. I believe in a God who is the Way, the Life and the Truth. Deliberately misleading others--even in fun--smacks of heresy. That's why I was so offended when Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.) got caught engaging in Wikiality a few weeks ago, after a reference to his self-imposed 12-year term limit--announced 11 years ago--suddenly vanished from his Wikipedia bio. Gutknecht is far from alone; so many staffers--on both sides of the aisle--were massaging their bosses' entries that Wikipedia's editors briefly banned all entry edits from congressional Internet provider addresses.

Here's the Winona Daily News' take on the incident.

NETROOTS
Just in time for yesterday's Veterans for Walz houseparty, Trillian over at the TPMCafe posts about Fighting Dem Vet Nominees are... 56 Fighting Dems for the GE!.  Tim Walz is on that list.

Minnesota Central asks "Do Klobuchar and Walz scare Bush ?"  He raises a good point about the incentive for Democrats to hold the line on fiscal responsibility:

. . . In fact, the Democrats have a greater incentive to demonstrate fiscal responsibility. With the 2008 Presidential election at stake, the Dems will want to prove to the voters that the Clinton-era of fiscal management of pay-as-you-go budgeting works better than the Republican’s tax-cut and spend policy.

Why is it that pro-growth tax policy sounds so righteous and yet is just code-speak for tax subsidies? Damn the deficit, if it means helping big business. Gil Gutknecht’s June 30th eline trumpeted the importance of passage in the House of H.R. 4761 which concerns itself with allowing drilling for oil on Outer Continental Shelf. Those of us that are concerned about our fiscal future heard a different trumpet and that one was expressed on June 29th, when the White House issued a statement on that bill. “The Administration strongly opposes the bill’s revenue-sharing provisions because of their adverse long-term consequences on the Federal deficit . The Administration’s preliminary estimate is that the revenue-sharing provisions of H.R. 4761 would reduce Federal Receipts by several hundred billion dollars over 60 years.”

America’s fiscal future is not at risk with Democrats in Congress. It is at risk with individuals that use fear-mongering to mask the real issues. . . .

Leigh Pomeroy was so impressed by Tim Walz's standings in Facebook's Election Pulse that he was one of 15 people who signed up for Walz yesterday. Fear not--college instructors aren't stacking the Election Pulse: the rest of yesterday's enrollees are all students. 

For Gutknecht, four students signed up, and at least one of them is eligible vote in the district.

Facebook is much more important for political organizing than the unscientific poll of Election Pulse. Its real value is in creating a social networking tool for young people to create their own presence as an independent grassroots force in elections.  Even before Election Pulse was created, a Walz volunteer put together a Facebook group that attracted hundreds of volunteers.

But judging from the people on Gutknecht's current header photo at his web site, perhaps the incumbent has decided to focus on a different age demographic than young voters.  Maybe not.

MN-01 Saturday: Change in the weather for Bush--and Gutknecht?'

Weather folks are talking about a change as we settle into the fall campaign season. The political climate seems to be changing as well in the Fighting First.

MANKATO FREE PRESS
The Mankato Free Press editorial board gives a thumbs down to a $20 million PR campaign for Iraq happy news:

Thumbs down

To the U.S. Senate for approving a $20 million expense in the Department of Defense budget for a public relations contract to generate positive news out of the war in Iraq.

Senators had proposed an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that would prohibit spending the money for the public relations contract that had already been awarded.

While it’s important the American public be informed about Iraq, and there may be a need to highlight some positive things that are happening, $20 million seems like an awful lot of money to spend on spin.

Such public relations also would most likely not portray an objective picture of the war in Iraq to the American people since those who would be getting the $20 million might have a tendency to provide the buyer (the Bush administration) what it wants.

An amendment offered by Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., called for a prohibition on the spending. The Senate voted 51-44 to table (kill) the amendment.

The Senate also voted, 54-44, against requiring the administration to report every three months to Congress on whether Iraq was in a civil war and detail the U.S. plan to protect soldiers from the crossfire.

Sen. Norm Coleman voted to spend the money and Sen. Mark Dayton opposed the spending.

Coleman voted against the requirement for the administration to report to Congress on civil strife and Dayton voted in favor of it.

Reader Carl Meyers of Eagle Lake believes "We need facts about 9/11, not movie that distorts them":

How sad it is that any major network would chose to outright lie about what happened on 9/11. These falsehoods are in a movie designed to distort the facts and created by a group of right wing supporters. [read more]

FILLMORE COUNTY JOURNAL LTE
A doctor in Preston sets the record straight about a comparison of Lincoln and Truman with Dubya:

When I first read Dr. Olson's letter (Aug. 28, Fillmore County Journal) comparing G.W. Bush to Lincoln and Truman I thought it was a parody of Rumsfelds' flight from reality before the veterans. Then it came to me that he was serious. [read more]

WINONA DAILY NEWS LTE
Readers in Winona don't seem any happier with the Bush administration, which it's curious that Gutknecht is bringing Bush liegemen like Hoekstra and Gingrich into the state for fundraising and incumbency campaigning.

Though correspondent Michael Bowler penned his epistle in support of a local DFL state senate candidate, he begins his letter "Going right over the cliff" with a pointed contrast between the Bush and Clinton policies in nation building [emphasis ours]:

In an era of monumental right-wing failures including Iraq, a huge federal deficit, collapsing health care and spiraling local taxes, Stan Gudmundson (Sept. 13) needs to learn that the old lefty scare goes nowhere. Indeed for most Minnesotans, lefty has come to have a pleasant association as we think of our most celebrated Minnesota Twin, Johan Santana, making us all proud in spite of anti-immigrant, right-wing rhetoric. Gudmundson only adds expensive gasoline to his fire by bringing up President Clinton’s Kosovo policy — that in fact halted hideous and rapidly spreading ethnic cleansing without our soldiers losing their lives —because it invites comparison with President Bush’s Iraq policy that has bred civil war, terrorism, global instability and massive casualties, American and Iraqi, but uncovered no weapons of mass destruction.

As the Rochester Post-Bulletin's editorial noted yesterday:

. . . So, yes, Hoekstra was here for Gutknecht, but he was also here for President Bush.

The issue

The future of Gutknecht and Bush are somewhat connected because the issues in Gutknecht's 1st District contest against Democrat Tim Walz are part of the midterm election battle some are trying to make into a referendum on the terrorism agenda of President Bush.

OLLIE OX UPDATE: Digby looks at the parallels between the ramp-up to the Iraq War and the current Iran alarm sounding in First As Tragedy, Then As Farce Worse Tragedy.

D M & E NEWS
The PB's Government Center blog has more DM & E news: the Mayo Clinic's letter to the WSJ in response to a column supporting the loan and a press release from the railroad showing how past upgrades have led to improved rail safety.  The Rochester Coalition responds with its own press release noting that New Rail Isn't Panacea for DM&E Derailments. 

Vox Verax raises an unpublished letter from its comments:  "Is the USDA relying on faulty data to support DM&E?"  The Marshall Independent reports on the crusade of the director of economic development in Tracy, MN, for DM & E loan approval.

NETROOTS
Oldie but goodie: we can't get enough of these Bush-Gutknecht bumperstickers.  OLLIE UPDATE: Look, Binky, here's another one. Jeepers.

The U-DFL blog reports Facebook At It Again:

Facebook is at it again. They've added a new feature called "Election Pulse" which tracks how many facebookers are supporting each candidate in each state. A brief summary of a few results from Minnesota:

For Senate, Amy Klobuchar over Rep. Mark Kennedy, 63%/34%
In the 1st Congressional District, Tim Walz over Rep. Gil Gutknecht, 69%/31%

We've got Facebook access, and we took a look. Some pretty impressive students supporting Walz, and the percentage of Walz supporters originally from or attending college in MN-01 is quite high.  This looks to be genuine grassroots for Tim Walz.

OLLIE OX UPDATE: The Vast Leftwing Conspiracy notes how Al Franken put in a pitch for two Minnesota candidates during a live appearance at a showing of "God Spoke":

Franken made a big pitch for people to support two Minnesota Democrats running for Congress, Patty Wetterling and Tim Walz. He asks that you contribute what you can, even if it's just $15 dollars, because these are great candidates for winnable seats.

MN-01 Sunday in Rochester: Gingrich and Murtha

The Rochester Post-Bulletin carried a news brief about a fundraiser tomorrow:

Former GOP Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich will appear Sunday at a fundraiser for U.S. Rep. Gil Gutknecht.

The event starts at 6 p.m. at the Radisson Hotel in Rochester, 150 S.Broadway, with a dinner and a photo opportunity with Gutknecht and Gingrich costing $1,000 per person.

Speeches are scheduled for 7:30 p.m.; the cost is $50 per person.

Gingrich and Gutknecht go way back, ace-boonies from 1994, when Gutknecht was first elected in the  GOP wave that took control of Congress that year. Gingrich is now nurturing Presidential ambitions after leaving Congress in disgrace; Gutknecht is trying to hold on to his seat.

There's much more online about Gingrich. It's important to note that while the two agree on many issues, Gingrich and Gutknecht do have some major differences.

For instance: Wikipedia. Gutknecht earned bad press when staff tried to remove his Contract-For-American related term limit pledge, then scorned the online source as unreliable. Gingrich differs:

During a 2006 CSPAN interview with Alvin Toffler, Gingrich referred to Wikipedia as a model of how people spontaneously organize information en masse and praised it for its accuracy and its being a "people's encyclopedia." Gingrich referred to it as being a model of future organization.

On a more serious note, Gingrich has also been an outspoken critic of Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha, who will be in Rochester on Sunday as well, at a Veterans for Walz fundraiser at 4 p.m. Detailed information here.

Nor was Gingrich alone in attacking Murtha, as Taylor Marsh demonstrates at the Patriots Project in "The Swiftboating of John Murtha."  More here at SourceWatch. Murtha's crime? Calling for redeployment of American troops in Iraq.

Yet Gingrich's own position on Iraq has also evolved.  See Even Gingrich wants to cut and run in the Carpetbagger Report from April, which references this ThinkProgress article "September 2004: Gingrich Blasts Critics of Iraq War Who ‘Complain We’re Not Winning Fast Enough’"   Digby analyzed Newt's war planning in "Future Shock and Awe" back in 2003.

Perhaps Gutknecht had Gingrich in mind in when he warned that it wasn't time to go wobbly on Iraq in June; maybe Gingrich's wobbling was on his mind later in the summer when Gil changed his own position on the Iraqi war.

But now Iran is the new Iraqi, as one U.S. counterterrorism official recently told the press. And  by bringing in Hoekstra and Gingrich, Gutknecht does appear to be allying himself with American neo-cons beating the war drums against Iran.

MN-01 Opinion: Rochester Post Bulletin Editorial

We mentioned Pete Hoekstra in our morning's post; his committee's report on Iran is being criticized as dishonest.

Today's Rochester Post-Bulletin editorial recalls Hoekstra's visit as well:

Last week's guest appearance in Rochester by Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., indicated that Gil Gutknecht has important friends in Congress who will go to bat for him in a tough election. So, yes, Hoekstra was here for Gutknecht, but he was also here for President Bush.

The issue

The future of Gutknecht and Bush are somewhat connected because the issues in Gutknecht's 1st District contest against Democrat Tim Walz are part of the midterm election battle some are trying to make into a referendum on the terrorism agenda of President Bush.

The editorial reviews Bush's anti-terrorism agenda that includes coercive interrogation, allowing hearsay in trials,  denying the right of terrorism suspects to review evidence against them under certain circumstances, and spying on U.S. citizens without cuort approval.

Hoekstra said he will support the president on these issues. Gutknecht said he would follow Hoekstra's lead.

[snip]

Tim Walz, the Democratic nominee, saw the president's proposals as clear dividers between parties and opposing candidates. Walz said he opposes Bush policies and believes they have weakened the country's security.

[snip]

Our view

The debate over national security proposals has spilled over into district congressional races. Even though Gutknecht indicated his positions are open for change, voters appear to have a clear choice between Gutknecht and Walz.