Oh god I hate Collin Peterson. He's a congressman from up here in Minnesota. The largest farm land district in the nation probably and it's pretty democratic. But there's Republicans who are more liberal then Collin Peterson.

He made a big fuss when he couldn't use his private jet and threatened to resign. Frankly I'd like him too. Then we could get a real rural populist in.

Unlike the GOPblogs (with some notable exceptions), we try to keep "our side's" feet to the fire.

Keep it up!

Thanks for bringing us up to speed, Dan.  I am wondering, what are the goals of progressive agriculture policy?  And how can we create win-win solutions with farmers and ranchers?

In other words, what are the substantive goals that require open rules?

If you could, please, educate us about the strategic goals for this session and the long term that would empower us to lobby our elected officials better.

At mass last week, we were asked to sign a Farm Bill Reform.

And I saw this:

Religious Groups Band Together
to Call for Farm Bill Reform
by Catholic News Service
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- The U.S. bishops, Catholic Relief Services, Catholic Charities USA, the National Catholic Rural Life Conference and Network, a Catholic social justice lobby, are joining more than a dozen other religious groups in advocating reforms in federal farm policy that could be implemented through the farm bill now working its way through Congress.

The organizations have coalesced into a body called the Religious Working Group on the Farm Bill to propose changes in the legislation that they say would benefit farmers, rural communities and Americans' nutritional needs.

"Passing a new farm bill is an important opportunity to reshape our agricultural policies to build a more just framework that better serves rural communities and vulnerable farmers in the U.S., overcomes hunger here and abroad, and helps poor farmers and their families in developing countries," said an April 20 statement by Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, N.Y. chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Domestic Policy.

"We join together to support policies that promote economic justice, strengthen rural communities at home and around the world, care for the land as God's creation, foster right relations among nations and achieve an end to hunger," said the Religious Working Group on the Farm Bill statement, also issued April 20.

The working group outlined for consideration for the farm bill a broad agenda of issues that would:

1. Increase investments that combat rural poverty and strengthen rural communities.
Strengthen and expand programs that reduce hunger and improve nutrition in the United States.

2. Strengthen and increase investment in policies that promote conservation and good stewardship of the land.
   
3. Provide transitions for farmers to alternative forms of support that are more equitable and do not distort trade in ways that fuel hunger and poverty.
   
4. Protect the health and safety of farmworkers.
   

Expand research related to alternative, clean and renewable forms of energy.
5. Improve and expand international food aid in ways that encourage local food security.

Calling Collin Peterson's single-engine, prop Beechcraft Bonanza a "private jet" is inaccurate.  

As for Peterson's politics (as opposed to his vehicle), fair enough.

Fascinating study-in-process coming up: the Peterson quote linked is exactly what he was saying a few days ago (my earlier piece on the Farm Bill tag is here:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/10/1652 50/662

If Pelosi wants it this way, she can have it: closed rule (even bar a motion to recommit) - wham bam thank you Madam Speaker!

Or, at least, that's how things are meant to be: Rules is supposed act as the Speaker's puppets; if they decline to give her the rule she wants, she can replace them. But - sparks will fly!

Rules flipping off Pelosi on any bill would be `bad' enough - on a mega bill like this, it would be like firing on Sumter.

Perhaps we have a Joe Cannon moment coming? Can't wait!

My views on the contribution that blogs might make to legislative process are here

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/8/17560 /42014

I think we can explain what's going on - that may or may not be something you'd want to happen, depending on the circumstances! But I'm not sure what else.

And there's no way we can even explain unless we have out noses pointed to the relevant text, and have its relevance (the political, economic, etc angles) pointed out to us by experts in the subject matter. (The most innocuous-looking amending provision can mean billions of corporate welfare!)

Whatever happens, dealing with the legislation of this Congress will stand us in good stead when (we hope) the Dems will get a crack at trifecta rule in the 111th.

(My laptop is buggered, hence the crude look of the foregoing...)