Major Iowa endorsement: Caucus4Priorities chooses Edwards - Courage over Caution

Today, Caucus4Priorities, the political arm of Iowans for Sensible Priorites, a grassroots activist group that has been pushing presidential candidates and Congress to reduce unnecessary military spending and waste, and rearrange spending priorities to meet American's continuing unmet needs, endorsed John Edwards for president in Des Moines.

This is a pretty big deal - they have collected 10,000 signatures of people who are looking for a candidate to change spending priorities, 10% of the estimated 100,000 caucus turn-out in 2004.

Check out the details over the fold.

First a bit about Caucus4Priorities:

Who they are:

Priorities Action Fund is a non-profit 501(c)4 organization dedicated to educating the public about the inequities of our current federal budget. We aim to redirect 15% of the Pentagon's discretionary budget away from obsolete Cold War weapons towards education, healthcare, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger, deficit reduction. This 15% cut, or $60 billion dollars, on obsolete weapons systems and the further proliferation of nuclear weapons does not include the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in no way impacts homeland security or our defense. We have the money; let's spend it on sensible priorities!

By eliminating wasteful expenditures, America could make investments that build strong communities for a better future.

Caucus for Priorities is a grassroots project of Priorities Action Fund, working in Iowa to encourage Iowans to sign a pledge that they will attend their caucus and caucus for a candidate who supports the Corporation's budget reprioritization goal.

The message - its about what America's priorites are and what they should be:

We spend more on the Pentagon than the rest of the world combined spends on defense.

Yet:

- Only about two-thirds of children eligible for Head Start can be admitted to the program.

- The United States now ranks 44th in the world in infant mortality, behind all the nations of Western Europe and the industrialized Far East, behind the former Yugoslav republic of Slovenia, and behind communist Cuba.

- Although schools throughout the country are eliminating programs in music, foreign language and physical education, federal spending on education has fallen to less than 10% of the proposed 2005 Pentagon outlays.

- Sixty-one million Americans are without health care coverage during some period of any given year; half that number are uninsured for the entire year.  Many of these are children.

- The Bush administration projects that the deficit for 2004 will reach $521 billion; Brookings estimates the total 2005-2009 deficit at 2.3 trillion.

- The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that trust fund programs, including Social Security and Medicare, will be in deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years and the entire federal budget deficit will total $2.75 trillion.

Before you read on, check out the video Edwards sent to the group detailing what his priorities are:

Iowans for Sensible Priorities - A Message from John Edwards

And here's the text. I particularly liked this part:

As president, I will order a top-to-bottom review of military spending. For every dime we spend, every contract, every weapons system, we'll ask these questions: Is it necessary? Does it work? Does it make us safer against today's threats...or is it designed for a threat we faced 20 years ago? And is it in the best interests of American taxpayers? If the answer is no, it will be cut - or outright eliminated.

And just to throw it in for those who like to read here's a few more details from the campaign issues page on cutting military waste, including our contracting system.

Here's a bit from the press release:

"Caucus for Priorities proudly endorses John Edwards for president," said Priorities Action Fund Founder Ben Cohen. "For months, our members have attended his town hall meetings across Iowa and found him to be a leader who listens - and always gives the straight answers Americans deserve from their president. As Commander-in-Chief, he'll do whatever it takes to keep us safe - but he'll also make sure Americans have health care, strong schools, and the opportunity to get ahead. He'll eliminate billions in wasteful Pentagon spending, and put our budget back in line with our values."

Edwards responded in agreement:

"Caucus for Priorities does such important work bringing awareness to the issue of waste in our military budget and the backward budget priorities in Washington that so often leave the interests of regular families behind," Edwards said. "I am honored to accept this endorsement today, and determined to be a voice for all those who believe we can defend our country without continuing to neglect the needs of our citizens.

"The question is: will we continue to give multi-billion dollar contracts to Halliburton and Blackwater while ignoring the 47 million Americans who have no health care coverage, or the 37 million Americans who live in poverty? I believe we need to fundamentally change the broken system and backward priorities of Washington. As president, I'll end the war, stop the waste and abuse, and invest in our most important priorities."

ABC also has a great article up on the endorsement, Edwards Picked Over Obama as 'The Un-Hillary' with a lot of the details.

Why Edwards?

He impressed the group on Oct. 26 when he demonstrated during an Iowa town-hall meeting that he would not back down in the face of Republican attacks. The day before, during an interview with a conservative talk-show host, Giuliani said that Democratic support for lower Pentagon spending showed a lack of concern for what Giuliani calls "the terrorists' war on us."

"Edwards gave an excellent answer," said Huppert. "He said we have to stop buying into their frame which equates spending money on the Pentagon with keeping us safe. He also said we can't have a Democratic candidate who cowers and runs away from this issue."

"For whatever reason," she said, "John Edwards has decided he is going to take this on and he has staked out the position quite convincingly of being the un-Hillary."

Ben Cohen further noted:

"We have lots of friends in this race but only one champion," wrote Ben Cohen, creator of Priorities Action Fund and the founder of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream. "Without question, John Edwards is the most committed and best prepared to bring about the kind of real change Washington desperately needs. John Edwards is uniquely qualified to take on Washington lobbyists and defense contractors and break the stranglehold they have on the nation's pocketbook and reins of power."

Why wasn't Senator Clinton chosen? Its painfully simple and to anyone who's watched the debates, its not a real surprise:


Although Clinton filled out the group's detailed policy questionnaire, she was not among the final two candidates under consideration for the endorsement.

"She didn't answer any questions 'yes' or 'no,'" said Huppert. "She has a refusal to commit to anything."

Ouch, no equivocation in that answer. And snubbing them by not getting their questionaire in on time probably didn't help. How about Obama?

The decision to endorse Edwards over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama came down to "courage versus caution," according to the group's executive director.

"There's a rhetoric gap with Obama," executive director Peggy Huppert told ABC News. "He told me personally: 'Trust me. Ideologically, I'm with you.' But people have told him to be afraid of being pushed too far to the left. He doesn't bring up [cuts in Pentagon spending] on his own. He doesn't incorporate it into his speeches. He skirts around it. He talks around the edges. He never gets to the heart of it in strong, bold language."

How will their endorsement help Edwards?
Well in a nutshell, 10,000 people in a 100,000 person caucus is a big deal:

Its endorsement was coveted by the Democratic presidential hopefuls, all of who filled out the group's questionnaire, because it has found 10,000 Iowans who have signed a nonbinding pledge to caucus on behalf of the candidate endorsed by the organization.

and while they can't share their membership list the group or force anyone to vote for Edwards, they will have an impact:

"we hope to shore up support for Edwards and to be a tipping point for people who are still undecided.... the group plans to communicate with its pledgers by phone and possibly by mail about the decision to endorse Edwards."

If you can spare it, why not help them get their message out?

Progressive change on the move
There's a progressive movement to change how things are done in Washington and the first test is in Iowa. Edwards has his priorities straight:

This is our time now. It falls to us to redeem our democracy, reclaim our government and relight the promise of America for our children.

Let us blaze a new path together, grounded in the values from which America was forged, still reaching toward the greatness of our ideals. We can do it. We can cast aside the bankrupt ways of Washington and replace them with the timeless values of the American people. We can liberate our government from the shackles of corporate money that bind it to corporate will, and restore the voices of our people to its halls.

This is the cause of my life. This is the cause of our time. Join me. Together, we cannot fail.

What are your priorities? Won't you join him?



Display:


Progressives (2.00 / 2)

are making their voices heard.


by okamichan13 on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 05:57:16 PM EST

side note on Peggy Huppert (2.00 / 4)

She also serves on the board of Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa's Freedom Fund (a PAC):

http://www.iowafreedomfund.org/board.htm l

There are a bunch of Hillary and Obama supporters on that board.

I've been told that the Freedom Fund PAC is NOT going to endorse a presidential candidate before the Iowa caucuses.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 06:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Major Iowa endorsement: (2.00 / 3)

That's what I'm talking about, an endorsement from average Iowans, who are actually going to vote. We have the people!


by Progressive America on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 06:00:00 PM EST

Re: Major Iowa endorsement: (2.00 / 3)

"We have the People."

Exactly. And "this will be an election, not an auction."


by NCDemAmy on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 06:01:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think turnout in 2004 (2.00 / 3)

was around 122,000, for the record.

Most of the campaigns expect somewhat higher turnout this year, but I wouldn't be surprised if turnout is the same or even a bit lower because of the January 3 date.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 06:07:34 PM EST

Thanks (none / 0)

wikipidia isn't the best source, but couldn't find much.


by okamichan13 on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 07:37:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who? (none / 0)

Their six members did what?


by dpANDREWS on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 06:16:12 PM EST

Re: Who? (2.00 / 2)

I figured this diary would not be complete without a snotty, fact-free comment from someone.  You have won the prize.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 06:18:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

10,000 (2.00 / 1)

grassroots people. Edwards is going to get a lot more votes from this than Hillary will get from Rubin.


by Progressive America on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 06:27:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

dpAndrews, this group is everywhere (2.00 / 5)

They table at every event where progressives gather. They've got representatives at almost every candidate appearance.

I've probably seen as many yard signs with their pie chart logo as I've seen yard signs for presidential candidates.

They are a very high-profile group.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 06:46:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

At least make a pretense of reading (2.00 / 1)

and then make a nasty comment.


by okamichan13 on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 07:37:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Iowa endorsement: (none / 0)

Great quote. The Executive Director said they picked Edwards because he was the best "un-Hillary".

Gotta love Democrats.


by hwc on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:22:51 PM EST

Re: Iowa endorsement: (2.00 / 3)

I realize everyone who doesn't endorse Hillary deserves a snide comment, but the article was very clear about the reason they ruled Hillary out of consideration.

Do you really think you can make a case that Hillary would be the best candidate to cut defense spending?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:23:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa endorsement: (none / 0)

No. I think John Edwards would be, by far, the most likely candidate to make willy nilly cuts in the defense budget.

That's one of the reasons he's not my first choice candidate. I think we have a real disaster on our hands in terms of military preparedness right now. Dealing with the military mess in the middle east and resetting our force structure and equipment levels is probably the single most important challenge facing the next President.


by hwc on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 11:32:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa endorsement: (2.00 / 1)

That's fine.  Makes your snotty comment about this endorsement seem all that more random though.

These 10,000 Iowans simply have a different view of the importance of our current defense spending level than you do.  Not everyone who disagrees with you is a bad Democrat.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 12:20:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa endorsement: (none / 0)

What snotty comment?

I simply pointed out that, according to the group's Executive Director, the most primary criteria for the endorsement was that the candidate be "un-Hillary".


by hwc on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 12:44:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"willy nilly cuts" (2.00 / 2)

Why don't you learn something about what Sensible Priorities stands for? We could save billions by cutting weapons systems that don't work and the military doesn't even want--basically Congress keeps funding these as jobs programs for their districts.

We could reduce our stockpile of ballistic missiles and save billions, even while retaining enough nuclear firepower to blow up the whole world.

No one is talking about Democrats making indiscriminate cuts to defense, except for right-wing talking heads.

And naturally, I wouldn't expect Hillary to seriously consider any cuts to our defense budget, given the money she receives from the defense industry.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 09:29:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "willy nilly cuts" (none / 0)

...basically Congress keeps funding these as jobs programs for their districts.

Right. That's the way Congress is designed to work. Representatives serve the interests of their congressional district. Senators serve the interests of their home states. Part of serving their constituents is making sure that their states get a fair share of federal expenditures.

One of the flaws of our system is that tiny population states, like Iowa, have undue influence because they have the same number of votes in the Senate as large population states like New York or California. It's an inequality in the system that resulted from a compromise between the northern industrial states and the Southern agrarian states when the founding fathers were serving their local interests in deciding on our system of representative democracy.

I don't see Iowans for Sensible Priorities complaining about the obscenely ridiculous handouts in the form of farm subsidies to Iowans. Do you know how much waste we could eliminate if we cut out the pork Iowa Senators bring home. Funny how we don't see Iowans driving around in silly cars promoting those potential savings.


by hwc on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 10:46:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa endorsement: (none / 0)

Do you really believe we need to spend 600 billion a year on defense. We have now spent 20,000 per person in Iraq. We could have spent 10
billion a year in aid in the middle east non military and probably solved the crisis. Do you think we need to maintain 10,000 nuclear weapons?
Check out Hillarys 110,000,000 in Defense earmarks and find a single program worth the money wasted on her earmarks
by marketingman on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 12:13:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Which is because (none / 0)

she couldn't answer the questions with real answers.


by okamichan13 on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 01:15:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellant! Recommended! (none / 0)



For a "surge" in Truth:  Say NO to NeoCons!!!
by DerekLarsson on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:24:12 PM EST

Re: Major Iowa endorsement: (2.00 / 2)

Congrats to the Edwards camp.  Well done.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Sat Nov 10, 2007 at 09:58:06 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.