The Dr. Politics Blog - Steffen Schmidt

Confidential Report Released BY MISTAKE! -Dozens in Congress under ethics inquiry

2009-10-30T06:09:00.000-07:00

Every time I see news stories like this I go nuts! A secret, temporary, preliminary report on ethics investigations in Congress was put on an open server. This meant that anyone including the Washington Post, could access the information. Read the brief summary below!

Dozens in Congress under ethics inquiry
AN ACCIDENTAL DISCLOSURE
Document was found on file-sharing network

Zoe Lofgren, the House ethics committee's chairman, emphasized that the panel's activities are preliminary.

By Ellen Nakashima and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 30, 2009

House ethics investigators have been scrutinizing the activities of more than 30 lawmakers and several aides in inquiries about issues including defense lobbying and corporate influence peddling, according to a confidential House ethics committee report prepared in July.

The report appears to have been inadvertently placed on a publicly accessible computer network, and it was provided to The Washington Post by a source not connected to the congressional investigations. The committee said Thursday night that the document was released by a low-level staffer.

Now do you suppose that YOUR confidential information held in government or private educational, medical, or corporate/business serves COULD NOT also become accessible.?!

You have to be a fool to think that your information is safe when any low level web manager or clerk - usually earning very little and with minimal training - is managing these critically sensitive files.

Full Washington Post Article

How Many Car Bombs Before Saddam Was Deposed?

2009-10-27T14:07:00.000-07:00

The answer is damn few.

Of course Saddam Hussein was a horrible man.

Of course Iraq was a bad place for many people.

Of course Saddam bragged that he had WMD's.

But in fact Iraq was stable just as Cuba is stable because the repressive regime can shut down crime and terrorism.

Chew on that!

When Economists are Wrong

2009-09-07T05:07:00.000-07:00

>Politicians and policy makers depend on good, hard information. Otherwise their decisions will be as much “policy garbage out” as the “garbage in” data on which they made the decisions.

Sometimes politicians and leaders have a predisposition to do what they would like because they have a preferred direction in which they want to go regardless of facts. Thus they will look at reality through the lens of their preferred course of action. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (1937 to 1940) needed to believe Hitler because it was his deep desire not to have to confront Germany or divert resources to military spending. Thus he signed the Munich Agreement in 1938, conceding the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to Germany. The rest is history.

Pres. Bush and Vice President Cheney wanted to believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction so they filtered out information to the contrary and decided to invade Iraq.

Now lets look at the decisions leaders have to make on the economy.

In 1824 the Supreme Court strengthened the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce with its decision in Gibbons v. Ogden, which involved the authority to license shipping. The way Trusts concentrated wealth and economic power in the hands of a few business tycoons so alarmed the American public that Congress passed the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. Theodore Roosevelt was elected to the presidency in 1904 on a Trust-Busting platform. President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal legislation effectively made the federal government the nation's chief regulator of business and the economy.

Then starting in the 1980’s we started deregulating business big time and ignored these historical reasons why business had been regulated in the first place.

Paul Krugman writes in a recent Op Ed piece (New York Times September 2, 2009), “It’s hard to believe now, but not long ago economists were congratulating themselves over the success of their field. Last year, everything came apart. Few economists saw our current crisis coming, but this predictive failure was the least of the field’s problems. More important was the profession’s blindness to the very possibility of catastrophic failures in a market economy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html

This is a serious disaster for policymakers. The problem is they now have nowhere to turn for accurate information to guide them on economic policymaking – taxing and spending to be precise. Economics has failed them and us.

And, this is not just a national or international problem. In Iowa government (and the rest of the economy) depends on three people who gaze into their statistical crystal ball and make economic forecasts. They are the Revenue Estimating Conference in the Iowa Department of Management.

“State general fund revenue estimates are generated by the Iowa Revenue Estimating Conference (REC). The REC is comprised of the Governor or their designee, the Director of the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, and a third person agreed upon by the other two members. The current membership of the REC is Charles Krogmeier; Dennis Prouty, Director of the Legislative Fiscal Bureau; and David Underwood, retired CFO and Treasurer, AADG, Inc. in Mason City, Iowa. The REC meets quarterly, generally in July, October, December, and April. The Governor and the Legislature are required to use the REC estimates in preparing the state budget.”

How accurate are their predictions?

Here is what radio Iowa reported about a readjustment of estimates on Friday, March 20, 2009.

Down, down, down: state tax revenue estimate drastically reduced

The Revenue Estimating Conference just met and the three-member panel has voted to reduce its estimate of state tax revenues for the current state budgeting year by $129.7 million. Their guess for next year has been reduced by $269.9 million. It will mean layoffs in state government according to the governor's chief of staff (who is one of the members of the Revenue Estimating Conference).

To me the operative terms in this story are “their guess.” One definition of the word “guess” is “an estimate based on little or no information.”

I guess (oops!) this could also mean that it could be “…an estimate made on the basis of malfunctioning macroeconomic models,” as Krugman would point out.

For us as Iowa farmers, professionals, business people, taxpayers, bankers, stock brokers, real estate developers, doctors, academics (especially university presidents), and so forth this failure of economics is no less a problem. We are now faced with a world in which we actually have no idea what lies ahead economically because the fundamental “wisdoms” of the economics and business professions were proven to be nothing more than fancy statistical smoke and mirrors. Ask long as the trajectory of change was incremental or decremental (i.e. slightly up or down) the models and wisdom of “the Dismal Science” held up. As soon as the future was not merely a slight adjustment of the past it all went wrong. Ask 5 economists a question and the joke goes you’ll get 6 different answers. That never happens in “real” science.

A quick read of the excellent Krugman article suggests that we desperately need to devise new ways of making fiscal and monetary policy as well as investment and regulatory decisions. With the Great Recession of 2009 the Great Discipline of Economics may also have been discredited.

Turns out they were mostly the Great Wizard of Oz and we have now peeked behind the curtain.

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

Was George W Bush Born in Kenya?! YIKES

2009-08-13T08:44:00.001-07:00

I got this in the mail. It looks pretty good. were the Bush's ever in Kenya? Is this a hoax? Who would want to spread a Bush-Birther rumor? Why are we wasting our time on this in the middle of a series of serious national security crises in health costs, Iran, Afghanistan, a very weak economy, and Swine Flu coming back.

You too or a friend or adversary can be "born in Kenya!" Just go to the web site and fill out the certificate! http://kenyanbirthcertificategenerator.com/

I didn't know Kenyans had a Texas accent. Go figger.

The History of Pain Cream - Cartoon by Schmidt

2009-08-11T18:50:00.000-07:00

Climate change - cartoon by Schmidt (c)2009

2009-08-11T09:37:00.000-07:00

Clinton, Kissinger and North Korea

2009-08-11T09:12:00.000-07:00

Should Bill Clinton Have Gone to North Korea and Secure the release of the Journalists Held Hostage by the Government?
Steffen Schmidt

Former Sec of State and aging wise man of American foreign policy asked in his Op Ed piece in the New York Times, Aug 9, 2009, “Is the lesson of this episode that any ruthless group or government can demand a symbolic meeting with a prominent American by seizing hostages or threatening inhuman treatment for prisoners in their hands?”

Kissinger objected to the Clinton move to visit North Korea, meet with its leaders, and successfully got the release of Laura Ling and Euna Lee, both of whom work for Al Gore’s failed media company Current TV. Kissinger argued instead for stuff that’s been tried unsuccessfully for years and years such as the “successful” policy towards Cuba, the failed plan to get Iran to give up nukes, the fruitless policies in Somalia, Angola, Afghanistan, Iraq, and North Korea itself.

I personally think that if the “lesson is” that Bill Clinton will spend the next 8 years of Obama meeting with global ruthless leaders and young local women in said leaders country who admire him for his charisma and hotness, then its win-win-win-win-win for all of us. Win for the USA, win for Bill Clinton, win for ruthless leaders he visits, win for the US “Trash” media (all the rest except Insideriowa.com), win for Hillary Clinton, and win for my personal peace of mind.
Plus, maybe Clinton can raise some more funds for the “Little Rock Double-Wide,” as the Clinton Pre. Library down on the mosquito-infested swamplands of the Arkansas River is affectionately called.

Henry, listen to me you obsolete policy wreck: All your foreign policies failed the United States see Vietnam, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Congo, and other places.

And, eight years of W and more years of Clinton before that being tough and “posing” or posturing did NOTHING to improve the behavior of the little freak who runs what I call the “spider kingdom” (the “hermit kingdom,” which the dying mainstream media prefers, tends to besmirch hermits who are some of the sweetest, nicest, quietest people in the world). You can catch more flies (or shrimpy, schizoid evil dictators) with honey than vinegar. The Bush vinegar failed so lets go the honey route.

If North Korea goes berserk (Insider Educational moment: Berserker was one of the ancient Norse warriors who “… were legendary for working themselves into a frenzy before a battle and fighting with reckless savagery and insane fury”) we will launch the Tomahawk Cruise Missiles which have been locked in on targets in N Korea and are ready to “Git ‘Er Done”.
By the way, Bill, Venezuelan women are the most beautiful in the world. Hugo Chavez needs a hug too!

Sotomayor Saga

2009-08-08T16:21:00.000-07:00

Poster (c) Baraboo Circus Museum; Sotomayor WhiteHouse.com; Beck from Glenn beck web site screen shot.

“Barrio” Baby With Disability Becomes Supreme Court Justice! Film at 11.”
Steffen Schmidt

Sonia (or Maria as Gov Huckabee called her) Sotomayor is now a Supreme Court Justice of the United States. She’s the first Hispanic and another woman (now there are two) on the Court, the first justice to grow up in a poor Puerto Rican neighborhood in the South Bronx, a diabetic from an early age, and top of her class in law school at Yale. She’s proud to be an American (AND a Latina woman), has been fairly hard on criminals as a judge (her neighborhood as a kid was infested with crime and she did not take kindly to that), and is a workaholic who sacrificed having a family for her work.

No wonder most of the GOP Senators voted against her! This is obviously an unpatriotic, incompetent, affirmative action, Socialist, and even racist (as Newt Gingrich called her) Democrat appointee.

Mel Martinez of Florida is a Cuban born refugee to the USA, a Conservative, and the ONLY Hispanic Republican in Congress. Actually he WAS the only GOP Hispanic because he quit a few days after the Sotomayor confirmation and before his term as Florida Senator is up. He put it this way, “Politically, its not a helpful moment for Republicans with Hispanics.” Only a Brit could have been so understated! Actually, her nomination has been a body blow to the GOP.

1. It undermines the theme that Obama does not practice bipartisan politics since nine Republicans and two “independents” voted for her confirmation including Martinez and even Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The badly wounded and minority Republicans where whittled down to a shamefully small number on this fight. This appointment HAD bipartisan support.

2. The GOP understands that Latinos/Hispanics are important to politics. They are the largest minority with 15% of the United States population and they are registering and voting in significant numbers all over the US. So why on Earth did they pick this fight when it is now the Litmus test of which is a Hispanic-friendly party and the Republicans lost that contest! In 2008 the GOP lost most of the Hispanic voters who had come around the party when George Bush promised them “compassionate conservatism” and used his brother Jeb’s wife and a nephew, who is part Hispanic and speaks great Spanish, to make the case for the GOP.

3. With African-Americans making up another 14% or so of the population and also voting mostly Democrat the GOP Senators may believe that the race and ethnicity card will bring them back to majority. Still, as Peter Drivas wrote in the Huffington Post “Fox News' Glenn Beck is feeling the consequences of his controversial comments on the July 28 episode of "Fox and Friends," when he said that Barack Obama was a "racist" who had a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." When bid advertisers start getting nervous about the Conservative race card the GOP establishment should take notice.

4. What, you hadn’t heard about the race card?! Shocking! Yes there is some pretty good analysis out there (confirmed to me by some of my deep cover Republican friends) that the strategy is to drive a wedge between male, lower income, white voters by stimulating the race card. Already the polls show that this demographic is now deeply suspicious if not outright hostile to Osama and by bank shot, the Democrats. The Henry Louis Gates/White police officer incident in Cambridge, Mass (Google it if you don’t have a clue – Here is Gates own commentary @ The Root http://www.theroot.com/views/accident-time-and-place) is being used as a “See, the minorities are taking over and the Dems and Obama are on their side” recruiting mechanism. Sotomayor plays perfectly into that whole strategy. She’s the “affirmative action justice” (AFJ) because she did well in college because she was treated differently and unfairly benefitted by being a woman, a Hispanic, and a person with disability – see she had three strikes in her favor according to the Anti-Soto crowd.

5. It is possible that all this race baiting will work. Never overestimate the public and voters who will shoot themselves in the foot with emotion and side shows while the main events are happening over there in the Big Tent of the political circus. Those “main attractions” would be things like health care cost and availability, the dangerous war in Afghanistan, the perilous US economy, jobs, the future of Social Security, jobs, a future rise in fuel prices, jobs, global warming and climate change, and jobs.

In the meantime I guess lets rage on. It’s no worse than what liberals and Democrats did to Clarence Thomas or Judge Bork and what Republicans did to Anita Hill in those horrible confirmation hearings. How quickly we forget. 

©2009SchmidtEducationalAuthoringServices (SEAS L.L.C.) Syndication. Use only with permission. Steffen Schmidt is professor of political science at Iowa State University and writes for InsiderIowa.com.

Who are the Only 2 people who can save California - Schmidt cartoon

2009-07-19T15:27:00.000-07:00

Harry Potter and a gay wizard.

Too Much Regulation?! I think NOT!

2009-07-19T07:59:00.001-07:00

Meth vs cigarettes- Schmidt cartoon

2009-07-18T13:30:00.000-07:00

"The hard choices the legislature makes. Enforce existing laws or send law enforcement after people for talking on their cell phone while driving and smoking too close to an exit door of a bar."

Bailout - Schmidt Cartoon

2009-07-18T13:27:00.000-07:00

Who ARE These Environmental Whacko's?! Cartoon by Schmidt

2009-07-17T13:40:00.000-07:00

Happy Politics 2012 - Schmidt Cartoon

2009-07-16T10:50:00.001-07:00

GOP 2012: A Bonanza! - Schmidt Cartoon

2009-07-16T10:42:00.001-07:00

The End of Bipartisanship?

2009-07-16T09:01:00.000-07:00

Is It Time for Democrats to Declare War on the GOP?

Steffen Schmidt

President Obama was in Michigan in mid-July 2009 to announce a new national community college expansion initiative in a state that has over 14% unemployment and a collapsing auto industry. A Detroit paper called Obama’s economic policy a "failed experiment." According to the Washington Post “Before Obama's arrival in Michigan, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) issued a statement that said Democratic economic policies "will strangle even more small businesses and destroy millions more jobs. That's not what middle-class families want -- in Michigan or anywhere else in America."

Obama said the equivalent of “bring it on” to the GOP critics and pointed out that it was eight years of Bush/Cheney and the GOP in control of Congress that could be blamed for the mess in which the economy finds itself. (He actually said “"I love these folks who get us in this mess and then suddenly say it's Obama's economy," he said. “ That's fine. Give it to me. I welcome the job," - Washington Post.)

Republican strategists and all of the GOP contenders for 2012 have concluded that there is no room for bipartisanship on the economy or any other issue. In their calculus the economy is an integral part of partisan politics, the opposition party has the responsibility to offer sharp alternatives from the git go and the idea of a “loyal opposition” is bunk.

The Democrats, giddy from the 2008 victories have more or less chosen to just ignore the Republicans and push through legislation with or without GOP support, which their majorities in the House and Senate can now do.

The public is still confused about why there is an economic crisis so the GOP strategy to label the problems “Obama’s Recession” is a good strategy because without a counterattack it will stick and could produce results in 2010 and certainly pose a big threat to the democrats in 2012.

So I’ve been talking to many friends, colleagues, and former students in both parties on how the public will assess the economic crisis and the job loss/unemployment disaster in which the country finds itself.

Basically the results are as follows.

Very few Republicans will buy into the Democratic legislative arena and even fewer will jump on ANY Obama administration initiatives in either domestic or foreign policy.

Republicans actually say they DO want bipartisanship. The GOP definition of “bipartisanship” must be “ya’ll Democrats change any policy that comes up and make it look more like a Republican policy.” One strategist told me that anything else would be largely rejected except for a few “… rogue Republicans who will go AWOL on us.”
So what should the Democrats do? Play nice and ignore the Republicans? Take off their gloves and go on a full bore offensive to make the economic crisis stick to Bush, Cheney, and the GOP? Attack on some issues and play nice on others?

One academic colleague averred, “There is almost no room for bipartisanship. Actually, the Dems don’t want it any more than the Repubs. By letting the GOP control the strategic high ground of blame, in a military sense, the Democrats are taking chances. The risk is that the public will buy the GOP story and blame the recession and all the economic scandals on the Dems.”

Her advice (which she’s selling for a lot of money as a consultant but I offer you for free!) is for every Democrat at the national as well as state and local level to start calling it the “Bush/Cheney Recession” at every opportune moment whenever they talk about jobs and the economy. She feels strongly that the 2006 and 2008 victories are acting as “tranquilizers, Political Valium if you will” (her terms not mine) and has made them complacent and sure the public will continue to vote Democrat in 2010 and 2012.

She added, “Obama is making a big mistake in being so ‘nice’ and not running with scissors. The Democratic Party needs to go on a big offensive. It’s no different from what Republicans are saying about how Obama is approaching Iran, North Korea, and other foreign policy crises. Nice don’t work!”

Indeed when I polled over 300 of my students a vast majority had no idea on how to assess the economic crisis and the bleak job picture for college students. They also seemed not to know whom to blame. That means their minds were malleable mush (to borrow a phrase from the rotund one) and I certainly buy the GOP assessment that if they have a unified message – “Obama is wrong.” “Look what he has done to our economy.” The Obama recession has cost you your job.” “It’s time for “smart change.”
I believe that public opinion can in fact be reshaped between now and November of 2010. The economic crisis took about 20 years of loosy-goosy policy, unethical and even a great deal of criminal activity by corporations and by government officials at all levels. The number of scandals is huge and Teapot Dome* no longer means anything in the wake of the highway robbery that’s been taking place.

So I think the overall results of my research can be summarized as “Let the partisan wars begin.” The Health care legislation Congress is currently debating and voting on is the best proof that there is NO bipartisanship. The Senate committee voting on the bill did so 13 to 10 on a strict party line vote.

Oh by the way, the democrats won the elections in 2006 and 2008 so they are now the majority party in government. As we all learned in civics class the majority rules in the United States. The GOP certainly did so in the eight years of Bush and the 12 that they controlled the House and Senate.

* The Teapot Dome Scandal refers to a bribery scandal during the administration of President Warren G. Harding. Teapot Dome is an oil field on public land Wyoming. I am a professor so I believe I must educate and footnote.

Steffen Schmidt is a University Professor of political science at Iowa State University and lead author of the country's most widely adopted introductory college textbook, "American Government and Politics Today" (17th Edition, Wadsworth Publishing). He provides weekly political analysis for Iowa Public Radio, and periodically in Spanish for CNN en Español. He is chief political and foreign correspondent for insideriowa.com.

Who’s the Best for the GOP in 2012?

2009-07-16T07:44:00.000-07:00

I don’t go out looking for trouble but with 40 years of teaching at Iowa State I have many, MANY politically very connected former students in all the parties and all over the USA. So trouble comes looking for me almost every week.

I mentioned on my radio show on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 that a bug was put in my ear by several politically well connected people I have known for years about the 2012 presidential race.
Here is how the story goes.

The GOP is frantically searching for a potential candidate for president in 2012. The party has been decimated by two consecutive electoral losses in 2006 and 2008 and their numbers in Congress have been badly slipping.

Second, the party finds it self with very risky demographics. It is losing younger voters, women voters, minority voters, moderate voters, independent voters, and suburban and city voters.
Third, it’s national base is slipping further South and for a national election such as the 2012 race for the White House there are not enough electoral votes in the South to win.

Fifth, Republican politicians in unacceptable numbers have been falling to sexual and financial scandals and the party itself is hurt badly by these.

Sixth, there is no national, leader to pull the GOP together around any focused philosophy.
Seventh, after eight years of President Bush, VP Cheney and a majority in the US Congress the party has lost its ideological way. Huge budget deficits in the eight years of Bush, several long and disastrous wars, serious lost battles to reform Social Security and develop a cost-effective and wide-coverage health care policy have damaged the “brand name” of the Republican Party.

As a result of these difficult conditions, there is a yearning among GOP voters and especially among the top bananas of the party inner sanctums for a “serious adult” as one of my former students now a big enchilada on the national scene put it. This person would have an impeccable personal record. “He or she must never have taken a trip to Argentina,” is how it was put. He or she must have the support of the GOP establishment, conservative voters and the party base but also needs to be admired and respected “across the aisle” by Democrats and appeal to Independent voters. The person must be fiscally prudent and “sensible.” They cannot have any baggage. "We want no more surprises," one of my contacts said.

It would be great if this person were a defender of the taxpayers hard earned dollars against fraud and abuse by the government. It would help if this individual were folksy and could connect with ordinary folks and yet be very experienced and sharp as pin on the key issues of the day.

Well, that’s a tall order for either party and so far the feeling is that the GOP has failed to finger that candidate. Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee are ahead of the game so far. Mitt Romney is definitely in the running. Sarah Palin is a great temptation and she has lots of buzz and zing but of course, also a lot of negatives.

But there is one dark horse lurking in the background and it’s not Colin Powell although his name pops up as well.

It’s Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley.

No one knows if he’s interested or could be drafted into presidential service. In fact, until yesterday I had not heard this but I made some phone calls and BOY, to my surprise, his name apparently has popped up all around the country. I asked if his age is not a factor. The answer was “we need an adult as candidate and besides, Ronald Reagan and then John McCain broke that barrier.” Another person said “Voters judge books by their cover and Grassley looks 10 years younger than he is and seems in excellent health.”

But what about the Iowa “First in the Nation Presidential caucuses? They’ll be ruined like Tom Harkin did when he ran!”

One of my Republican friends said “Don’t worry. Sen. Grassley would graciously not run in the caucuses but he would run in the New Hampshire primary where he would easily win because he reaches out and appeals to independent voters.”

Now that I’ve shared this with you I’m goanna take the phone off then hook and go take a nap. Don’t you LOVE to fall asleep when the rain is drumming on your bedroom roof?

Schmidt's Meager Management (tm) (c)2009

2009-07-14T08:16:00.000-07:00

As of today I am copyrighting and trade marking the term Meager Management (c) (TM) 2009.

The term will be used to refer to a new and chronic phenomenon in government but also the private sector which is a decline in available revenue. Here is now a New York Times article summarized the dilemma in which Michigan finds itself:

"In all, even before thinking about the coming year’s $1.8 billion shortfall, Michigan’s lawmakers had — through cuts, accounting shifts and tax increases — closed more than $7 billion in budget gaps over the past eight years. While many states have experienced a year of pain or perhaps two during this downturn, Michigan is approaching nearly a decade of budget misery."

This situation more or less lipped by all of us and we were shocked, SHOCKED I SAY, when we discovered what the US auto industry disaster was doing to the State of Michigan. we know that California is worse off (is that possible?!) budget wise with 30 some billion dollars in deficit and no end in sight.

MSNBC had another very troubling piece on state pension funds:

Most state pension funds do not have enough assets to pay for their long-term pension liabilities, although experts say the median level of 85 percent is not low enough to raise alarm bells. Some states, including Illinois and West Virginia, are substantially below that level. Figures are as of June 30, 2004, the most recent date for which complete figures were available.

What! The most recent numbers are for 2004!

What the hey!

Do YOU balance your checkbook only every five years?

These people should be putting out numbers every six months and then they should be adjusting revenue sources, fees, spending, and hiring to match their miserable state of affairs.

If you try to find solid information about local government and school pension funds you hit a brick wall. the data is not much better for county and state governments but we know generally that pension obligations are for the most part in the red and used as cash cows to fund otherwise unaffordable programs. It's basically the same as Social Security only worse.

Let's keep our eye on the pension and below-the-federal-government budgeting and revenue woes ball. Keep an eye out for Schmidt's Meager Management (TM) and (c) 2009 will be up for widespread debate and discussion as well as running some workshops and other hands-on traimning activities.

Palin and Iowa

2009-07-13T10:16:00.000-07:00

I recently got this "Political Poster" from a student of Sarah and Newt.

No doubt they meant 2012 but that raises the interesting possibility that Sarah and newt might run for Governor of Iowa first.

That would be a really awesome "maverick" thing to do wouldn't it!?

It's not hard to establish residency and run in a different state. Remember Bobby Kennedy and Hillary Clinton did it. Dick Cheney, at the time a resident of Texas, ran for VP with "W" Bush (also a resident of Texas which is prohibited by the US Constitution - not being from Texas but the Prez and Vice Prez candidates being residents of the same state). Cheney just "declared" Casper, Wyoming his "official" residency.

Actually John McCain was born in Panama but ran for President of the United States even though he would have violated the US Constitution that you must be born on US soil (the Canal Zone is NOT what the "Founders" had in mind any more than a US Embassy or a USIA Cultural Center in, say Madrid, or a US military facility in Northern Afghanistan would qualify).

Running for Governor of Iowa would seal in concrete Palin's reputation as being innovative, quirky, and pushing the envelope. It would give Newt an electrifying partner which some people say he needs.

Then, if they win in Iowa, they can launch their 2012 campaign from the "First in the Nation" state. Of course, they'll have to resign in mid-term as Gov in Iowa, but, HEY, Gov. Palin has already practiced doing that so it should be a cinch!

Wow, 2010 is going to be so much MORE fun than I ever expected!

More at InsiderIowa.com

Are politicians a “scurvy lot?”

2009-06-21T05:05:00.000-07:00

From Insideriowa.com political blog. used with permission.

On June 14, 2009 in the Boston Sunday Globe Jeff Jacoby wrote an excellent column on Massachusetts corrupt politics “Bay State's low standards.” The opinion piece listed some of the current failures of the legislature including “… spending the state into near-insolvency, … passing the largest tax hikes in state history [including a 25% increase in sales tax], … gutting initiatives passed at the ballot box, … marching in lockstep behind corrupt legislative leaders, … stuffing the public payroll with their relatives.”

Jacoby begins his piece with a stunning flashback into history.

THAT Massachusetts lawmakers are a scurvy lot is not exactly breaking news. In his notes on the Constitutional Convention in 1787, James Madison records the comments of Elbridge Gerry, a Massachusetts delegate and future governor, on the caliber of Bay State politicians:

"In Massachusetts the worst men get into the Legislature," Gerry told the convention, and "several members of that body had lately been convicted of infamous crimes." The State House was a place where "men of indigence, ignorance, and baseness spare no pains, however dirty, to carry their point."

Gerry, by the way, is associated with the creation of “politically” shaped districts for legislative elections to benefit your party. These came to be known as “Gerrymander” districts because one of them had the rough shape of a salamander to which an observer noted it should be called a Gerrymander instead.

Jacoby also makes an excellent point, the danger of incumbency. We all know that most politicians are reelected at the rate of 98% in some years. He writes that,

“Gerry's point was that democracy is no guarantee of good government, since voters often elect meritless hacks. But even he might have marveled at the willingness of Massachusetts voters in our day to keep voting the bums in instead of throwing them out. Year in, year out, election after election, the overwhelming majority of state legislators are reelected, often without even the formality of a challenge.”

I have NEVER understood nor accepted the fact that in the United States we allow (better said, the political parties allow) uncontested elections. In Cuba or North Korea that is expected. In Iowa or Massachusetts we should strive for “100% Competition” in our elections. Every house and state Senate district has at least two people – one Democrat and one Republican – who would merit candidacy to represent their neighbors.

If I had a lot of money I’d set up an endowment and fund the “100% Solution” project to identify, recruit, train and give some campaign advice and seed money to worthy citizens so that we never again have elections where there is only one candidate. Barring that, I believe that at the very least the two major parties should do so immediately.

On the other hand, uncontested elections would be the perfect venue for third parties such as the Green or Libertarian party to field candidates. Unchallenged incumbents are not used to raising money, organizing voter turnout, or campaigning. Therefore they should be easy picking’ for a challenger who is smart, connected to the community, and hard working.

Besides, it is not healthy to have the “monoculture” of just two political parties. In every other democracy in the world there are three or four parties that actually make a difference, have members elected to legislatures, and sometimes offer the most innovative alternative ideas to policy problems.

At least we have frequent scandals that topple or mortally wound politicians and make room for new blood. Nevada Senator John Ensign’s (R-Nevada) affair with a staffer is the most recent. Ensign is a member of the Promise Keepers, a Christian organization devoted to cultivating “men of integrity”— so this scandal is especially juicy.

It gets even better. According to Jim Rutenberg in the June 19, 2009 New York Times,
“A spokesman for Senator John Ensign said … that the husband of the former staff member with whom the senator admitted having an affair … had made demands for money through his lawyer. … [The husband], Doug Hampton, had demanded cash from the senator after learning of Mr. Ensign’s relationship with his wife, Cindy Hampton. Both Hamptons, and even their son Brandon, had worked at the Senate and political offices of Mr. Ensign…”

Other recent notable fiasco’s include former US Senator Larry Craig’s (R-Idaho) anti-gay policies, which ended up making him look ridiculous and hypocritical for [possibly] being gay when he played “footsie” with the undercover cop at the Minneapolis airport. The dethroned incumbent list goes on with prostitute problems for David Vitter (R-Louisiana) who in July 2007 was identified as a client of "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey, and Eliot Spitzer who in 2008 was forced to resign as Governor or New York because the Times revealed that he had patronized a prostitution service called Emperors Club VIP and consorted with “Kristen” 22 year old Ashley Dupré who was paid $4,300 in cash including $1,100 as a deposit with the agency toward future services.

A cancer-stricken wife and a campaign bimbo spelled the end of John Edwards (not an incumbent but a real hot prospect for president). Kinky, explicit text messages to young, underage boy pages unseated Congressman Mark Foley (R-Florida).

So, while politicians have a huge incumbency advantage, their peccadilloes often open spaces for fresh faces and new leadership. And, while they all seem to be hard at work, unfortunately it is often not related to their service to their constituency but more closely related to other “service.”

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/06/14/bay_states_low_standards/ For Jacoby’s full article on Mass politicians.

Steffen Schmidt is University Professor of Political Science at Iowa State University and Political Editor of InsiderIowa.com. His book American Government and Politics Today, 2009-2010, (Cengage) is in its 17th edition.

Dem in trouble all over the USA

2009-06-16T07:17:00.000-07:00

Are the Democrats in Trouble? You Betcha!
By Steffen Schmidt

I have sufficiently exposed the flaws in the Republican Party this year, weaknesses that are troubling even to GOP leaders and operatives.

Now, in fairness, I must turn my guns on the Democrats.

Sure they control the House, Senate, and the White House. Of course their approval ratings are at least 10 percentage points ahead of the GOP. Democrats trust and like their party by a huge gap. BUT, there is the disaster called California, the chaos of New York, and the slime of the bay State (Massachusetts).

In California the Democrats have managed to spend the state into bankruptcy and don’t have the spine to cut spending and raise fees and taxes. While Arnold Schwarzenegger is governor and is nominally a Republican it is the Big spending Democrats who have blocked any efforts to straighten out this magnificent state.

In New York the Democrats are weak and led by governor Patterson with approval ratings of 21%, which is les than his disgraced predecessor Elliot Spitzer (he resigned when his dalliances with a young prostitute in Washington, DC was revealed) who has a whopping 26% approval.
Patterson is in such miserable shape that there is talk of a primary challenge for the 2010 election, which he would probably lose. The democrats are the majority party in New York but they seem rudderless against the pitifully small Republican contingent, which, while on life support, continues to lunge up from the deathbed, its arms extended out Frankenstein-like.

The latest GOP “miracle” was the defection of two “rogue” Democrats Pedro Espada Jr. and Hiram Monserrate. These two Hispanic Senators decided to switch parties and vote with the GOP, thus giving the republicans a 52 vote majority in the Senate. Because Gov Patterson was the Lt. governor when Spitzer quit there is no one in that position and Sen. Espada, as Senate President, would become the Gov. of New York State should Patterson quit.

By the way Mr. Espada is under investigation for keeping bad campaign finance records for which he has been fined before, doubts about where his official residency is (he represents the Bronx but they say he really lives in Mamaroneck, which is not his district), dubious tax-payer financed travel, and illegal earmarks for a nonprofit in the Bronx which he founded and is its CEO.

This “traitorous” behavior has given New York Democrats a bad case of vertigo. Without a strong leader and the machine politics muscle that could have deterred the two Hispanic defectors, the party seems adrift.

Senator Monserrate decided over the weekend following his leap to the GOP to switch back again to the Democrats thus creating a tie in the New York Senate. Did I mention that their defection (we used to use that for Cubans who would seek asylum) was arranged” by a “rogue billionaire” (I don’t know how that differs from a non-rogue billionaire) Tom Golisano, the retired Paychex billionaire, three-time gubernatorial candidate and founder of the NY state Independence Party. (By the way he is moving to Florida where there is no income tax and saving $14,000 a day by leaving New York.)

Wow! Real gridlock! Real “dissidence”! Evil billionaires! How cool is that? Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch said “… it makes New York look like a banana republic.”

So while California is a political and economic disaster, New York Democrats have now become a joke.

Then there is Massachusetts. We all know that there are no Republicans in Mass. So the Democrats have been free to rampage through the system with no scrutiny and they decided to commit almost every abuse of power imaginable. Their offenses range from repeatedly assaulting women in public to taking bribes and stuffing them in their bra, extorting money for contracts, putting relatives on unspeakable payrolls, greatly increasing public pensions for themselves at a time of serious economic pain, and of course sucking the Federal Govt. and US taxpayers dry with the “Big Dig” waterfront project which makes defense and medical contract overruns looks like a day care center scandal.

Lets put it in perspective. We now have the third Speaker of the House in the Bay State (or “on Beacon Hill” as they say because that’s where the State House is located) in a row to face criminal charges! No wonder citizens in Massachusetts are literally giving the finger to legislators as they drive home.

In Iowa, Gov. Chet Culver (D) looks vulnerable with low approval ratings and a likely primary fight as well as an aggressive field of Republicans on the hunt. Steve King vs Bob Vander Plaats should be fun. The State House also looks wobbly for the Democrats assuming Iowa Republicans can field what I like to call a “99 County Campaign -99CC” (i.e. find someone with a pulse to run against the Dems in every single race). In 2010 this may be possible because they have finally discovered the Internet and social networking technology and could “Twitter” their way into a majority.

The point is that while the Republicans look weak and in disarray nationally (which they are) the Democrats actually have a soft underbelly in many states. The 2010 elections may be more interesting that the mainstream pundits and media have estimated. So stay tuned. It could be a great year for America’s favorite contact sport.

Steffen Schmidt is University Professor of Political Science at Iowa State University and the lead author of the book American Government and Politics Today 2009-2010, (17th edition), Cengage Publishing.

Where to GOP?

2009-06-13T06:17:00.000-07:00

“A new Gallup analysis of almost 150,000 interviews conducted from January through May of this year sheds new light on the substantial gender gap that exists in American politics today. Not only are women significantly more likely than men to identify as Democrats, and less likely to identify as independents, but … this gap is evident across all ages, from 18 to 85, and within all major racial, ethnic, and marital-status segments of society.”

This is a serious problem for republicans for several reasons. First, women are a larger percentage of the population than men. Second, women vote more than men. Third, how long can it be before women socialize their kids and spouses to this pro-Democratic party leaning?
This poll comes on top of other bad news for the GOP from a USA Today/Gallup poll.

One-third of Republicans now say they have an unfavorable opinion of their party. Just 4% of Democrats have an unfavorable view of their party. Asked by Gallup "what comes to mind when you think of the Republican Party," 25% of those surveyed said "unfavorable" and another 1 in 4 offered negative assessments including "no direction," "close-minded" and "poor economic conditions." Sixteen percent said “conservative” and 7% "favorable."

There have also been some serious bi-partisan activities favoring the Democrats. Republican Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois was appointed as transportation secretary. Former Republican Sen. Arlen Specter’s (Pa.) switched to the Democratic Party. Republican Robert Gates is Secretary of Defense. Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman was chosen to become U.S. ambassador to China. The new Army Secretary will be Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y. These defections are driving the Republicans crazy.

These developments also come on top of a fierce battle among several national GOP elites for political oxygen and leadership visibility.

A Grand Canyon has opened up between the ultra conservatives of the party (Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich) on the one hand, Sara Palin and Mike Huckabee on the other hand, and on the third hand (yes this is at least a three handed party) the “Big Tent Explorers” who want to broaden the party appeal.

These “explorers” met in Arlington, Virginia in a town hall-style meeting of the newly formed National Council for a New America. This event, at a pizza restaurant, was the opening shot to “launch a series of listening sessions across America.” Attending the event were former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.) who is often called a “rising start” in the GOP. This group also includes John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) another “rising star.” They laid out their vision for reviving the GOP. The meeting was brutally trashed by Rush Limbaugh and other hard-core conservatives who believe that the GOP must return to its “true” conservative roots.

Finally there was the ugly early skirmish for 2012 between Alaska Gov Sara Palin and Newt Gingrich. According to By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog, “Palin was initially invited many weeks ago to address the House and Senate Republicans' annual fundraising dinner in D.C. There was an apparent miscommunication between the two camps over whether she had accepted, resulting in fed-up beltway Republicans asking former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to keynote the confab.” Then it got interesting according to Politico, “After being invited — for a second time — to speak to the annual joint fundraiser for the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Palin was told abruptly Saturday night that she would not be allowed to address the thousands of Republicans there after all. The reason given for the snub, said a Palin aide, was that NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions was concerned about not wanting to upstage former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the fundraising gala's keynote speaker.”

The Washington buzz is that Newt became furious when he found out Palin was speaking and would certainly upstage him. The organizers then had to pull the plug on Palin. So this was the opening shot heard around the GOP of “The Brain” Gingich vs. the “Super Star” Palin. Stay tuned for the next extreme professional political wrestling match.

All of these are “pings” coming from the GOP flight deck. They suggest that a massive national air, land, and sea search operation for a leader for the Republicans is now urgently needed in order to find the Republican party and then unify and focus it around winning leaders and themes.

It’s always hard to be the “out” party.

It is exceptionally difficult when all of the indicators of political vitality (a huge gender gap, a racial and ethic minority gap, a very real age and youth gap, an “ideological approval rating” gap) point in the wrong direction.

State Racial Gerrymandering for Minority Candidates to Win Office

2009-03-10T04:05:00.000-07:00

As you know there is probably no "post-racial politics" in the United States in spite of the election of Barak Obama to the White house. American law and jurisprudence is deeply racialized. In March of 2009 in Iowa "State government officials continue to deny African-Americans jobs and promotions despite being put "on notice" multiple times during the past few years, ..." according to the Des Moines Register. This has to do with how big the pool of minority applicats for positions must be to prove that ythere is no racial bias.

So, the following court case from North Carolina is interesting as it involves gerrymandering of districts (deliberately drawing certain boundaries and shapes) to achieve a racial minority-majority (premised on the idea that African Americans would vote for a black candidate over a white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American/American Indian or other candidate and that therefore a majority of black voters in a district is a reasonable and sound idea.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-689.pdf
US Supreme Court Syllabus

BARTLETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ET AL. v. STRICKLAND ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 07–689. Argued October 14, 2008—Decided March 9, 2009

Despite the North Carolina Constitution’s “Whole County Provision” prohibiting the General Assembly from dividing counties when drawing its own legislative districts, in 1991 the legislature drew House District 18 to include portions of four counties, including Pender County, for the asserted purpose of satisfying §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. At that time, District 18 was a geographically compact majority-minority [majority black/African-American] district.

By the time the district was to be redrawn in 2003, the African-American voting-age population in District 18 had fallen below 50 percent. Rather than redrawing the district to keep Pender County whole, the legislators split portions of it and another county. District 18’s African-American voting-age population is now 39.36 percent. Keeping Pender County whole would have resulted in an African American voting-age population of 35.33 percent.

The legislators’ rationale was that splitting Pender County gave African-American voters the potential to join with majority voters to elect the minority group’s [i.e. African-American] candidate of choice, while leaving Pender County whole would have violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Pender County and others filed suit, alleging that the redistricting plan violated the Whole County Provision. The state-official defendants answered that dividing Pender County was required by §2.

The trial court first considered whether the defendants had established the three threshold requirements for §2 liability under Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 51, only the first of which is relevant here: whether the minority group “is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district.”

The [trial] court concluded that although African-Americans were not a majority of District 18’s voting-age population, the district was a “defacto” majority-minority district because African-Americans could get enough support from crossover majority voters to elect their preferred candidate. The [state trial] court ultimately determined, based on the totality of the circumstances, that §2 required that Pender County be split, and it sustained District 18’s lines on that rationale.

The State Supreme Court reversed [the trial court decision], holding that a minority group must constitute a numerical majority of the voting-age population in an area before §2 requires the creation of a legislative district to prevent dilution of that group’s votes. Because African-Americans did not have such a numerical majority in District 18, the [State Supreme Court] ordered the legislature to redraw the district.

Held [by the United States Supreme Court]: The judgment [of the State of North Carolina Supreme Court] is affirmed.

Note: This case does not ask if gerrymandered districts are constitutional or not and presumably they are legal. No "post racial" politics here.

Goverment - How Big? How Bad?

2009-03-01T09:54:00.000-08:00

My students always ask "Is government good or bad?"

Now they are also asking "How big should government be?"

After half a century of Reaganomics and criticism of big government my students are really confused about why in 2009 government seems to be the only hope and solution to a collapsing nation.

I explain it this way.

If you want to buy stuff and consume products - any and all products - then the private sector is generally the most effective provider.

If you want to drive on paved roads, over safe bridges, be protected on that drive from bandits and roadside terrorists, and, at the end of your drive, have an airport with air traffic controllers, safe airplanes that have been inspected and that are safe then you need government. Tax cuts to consumers will NOT build and service any of these common goods. Without revenue, neither local, state, nor the federal government can provide these services.

Would private companies or "donations" build and maintain our military? No.

The same is true of education. We need excellent public schools and state universities and community colleges have been crucial to the United States becoming a wealthy and successful nation. Most students think they are paying the full cost of education in their tuition. When I tell them about half or more is subsidized by government they are shocked.

I asked my students what parts of the 2009 Obama budget they liked. Of course, more education spending and student loans were immediately chosen.

Then I asked them how government can afford these - "Don't they need taxes to pay for all of this?" - they were stumped.

I then asked them if banks and mortgage companies should be regulated and their actions scrutinized by government. Even the Republican students in my class said (reluctantly) that it was a mistake to allow them to operate with so little oversight over the past decades.

One student brought up the lack of peanut butter inspection and said government (not private companies hired by the Peanut Company of America) should have been doing these inspections.

"You can't trust business Because they need to cut expenses and show a profit so the less regulation the more they like it."

Another brought up poisoned pet food, toothpaste, and lead painted toys from China and said the government should have had more vigorous inspections.

Another student said Iowa should have had serious and aggressive inspection of living quarters for workers such as the mentally retarded men (at a commercial turkey farm) who were housed for years in an unheated building, with locks on the outside doors, and got paid $95 a month.

In my American government classes this discussion, carefully conducted, can be one of the most rewarding and intelligent. My advice - bring it down to tangible and familiar examples.

1. There is a need to support and maintain a vigorous private sector and give people as much money back from their income as possible.

2. There is a critical need for governments at all levels to develop and maintain high quality services that make life good and make commerce possible so we need taxes and fees. These are not an option.

The Rushification of the GOP

2009-03-01T09:04:00.000-08:00

Rush Limbaugh is today the only "national leader" the Republican party has.

I have talked to two dozen of my best former students, all of whom are now big shots in the GOP and they all agree with my analysis.

Newt Gingrich is the intellectual guru but he lacks charisma and he's never run anything, balanced a budget, or hired and fired people so the work on the street is that it's gonna be a governor.

Louisiana Governor Piyush "Bobby" Jindal was the "Great Brown Hope" but he's turned out to be, as one DC "insider" calls him the "Slumdog Governor' (Jindahls family is from India). (Barak "Hussein" Obama suffered from GOP mockery of his middle name and I know several Democrats who call this governor Piyush which is actually his real name. Ain't politics wonderful and cruel!) The truth of the matter is that Slumdog is a compliment - the movie was about heroes who overcome odds and do some wonderful things!

Former Massachusetts governor and businessman Mitt Romney is the "Bidness Solution" together with Mayor Bloomberg of New York, but right now bankers and corporate downsizers are not such a good flavor.

Alaska Governor Sara "Ma" Palin was a temporary wonder who is having all kinds of problems in Alaska and will be bruised and a badly damaged good.

Then there are the other "Midgets in the Woodwork" (one of my best graduates - She's now a GOP political consultant in Seattle) - Gov. Pawlenty of MN, Huckabee, Anti-immigrant Tom Tancredo of Colorado, former NYC Mayor Rudi Giuliani who's still tasting it. How about Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas? Oh yeah there is a household name!

Texas Representative Ron Paul is interesting and certainly has a passionate base and a lot of money.

So why is Rush Limbaugh the leader of the GOP?

1. Because the GOP is so divided Rush is the only clear voice.
2. Because that's the Democrat's strategy

With Rush as the sparring partner the GOP is forced to shift its forces to the fart right front lines and dig their trenches there. Listen to Rham Emmanuel, Pres. Obama and other leading Democrats and you will see that they are aiming their artillery at Rush. Look at what the GOP leaders are forced to do - swing behind El Rushbo or they get spanked!

This will be one of the wildest and most interesting four years until the 2012 presidential election!

Fred Thompson FINALLY enters the race.

2007-09-07T04:13:00.000-07:00

Former Tennessee Senator and actor Fred Thompson finally entered the race for president four years after former Senator John Edwards started to run and a year after his GOP rivals. He did so by announcing on the Jay Leno show in September of 2007 the same evening as all the other Republicans were debating in New Hampshire. This came months after Thompson lost most of his campaign staff (Thompson's chief spokesman from early on, Mark Corallo, became the fourth communications aide to leave in a month) and his controversial wife Jeri was rumored to be personally trying to run his campaign.

Here is what some bloggers had to say:

And Fred thinks he has a chance? Hell, he can't get his own house in order - do you really think he can get the country in order?

The ship that sank in port, the Freddy boy.

Looks like Jeri Thompson has two more campaign roles to fill now. What's that, like 15 now?

On his first trip to Iowa as a declared candidate at an evening event at a park in Council Bluffs, Thompson was mistakenly introduced as "Senator Roberts from Tennessee". “At his first event in Des Moines, Thompson walked on stage with his wife, Jeri, and their two young children as "Heartland" by George Strait blared. The stage was erected a third of the way into the exhibition hall to make the room appear smaller and better attended” according to AP. So much for the “great white hope” og the GOP making his triumphant entrance to Iowa.

In fact, many Iowa Republicans are very annoyed that he is as one GOP activist told me “the marathon racer who comes in halfway through the race.”

Thompson’s story is emblematic of what the American presidential selection process has become.

It is fundamentally a psychological war between huge egos. It is spin Judo and “Gotcha” politics. It is tactical moves, and perception.

Thompson’s biggest problem is that the decisive leader could not make up his mind and decided that he could gain the calendar. His second biggest problem is that his record and the long lead time he gave his opponents to prepare opposition research. His “zigzags on such key issues as abortion rights, immigration, a gay marriage ban, and campaign finance reform” as the Boston Globe said, make him less than the “true conservative” he’s trying to be and make him another very flawed candidate.

One of my best students pointed out that no bald man (Thompson’s six strands are not hair) has been elected president since Eisenhower and John Quincy Adams was the only other Chrome Dome president in history. When Goliath’s locks were cut he lost his strength.

Good Luck Senator!

Political Families - oh the Curse!

2007-08-15T04:12:00.000-07:00

The Question is - " How can presidential candidates' families be a help or hindrance on the campaign trail."

The Answer:

There has always been interest in candidate's or president's families.

Jackeline Kennedy was a huge asset to JFK. Glamorous, tolerant of his infidelity, a media personality who spoke several languages and was the "Princess Diana" of her time - adored by crowds around the world.

Senator Ed Muskie "...became the favorite to win the 1972 Democratic Presidential nomination. But being the front-runner for over a year proved difficult. During the New Hampshire primary, Muskie choked with anger and seemed to cry because of a couple of nasty articles in the "Manchester Union Leader." One article proved to be a hoax. The other attacked Muskie's wife. Muskie then attacked publisher William Loeb.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE: (February 1972) By attacking me, by attacking my wife, he has proved himself to be a gutless coward. And maybe I said all I should on it. It's fortunate for him he's not on this platform beside me. A good woman--
CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: The episode came to symbolize the collapse of Muskie's Presidential campaign because of the perception that he was weak (he cried - or it was so cold in New Hampshire that his eyes were watering). Muskie then went back to the Senate and headed the powerful Budget Committee until President Carter tapped him to be Secretary of State in 1980." (see: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/remember/muskie_3-26.html)

Mitt Romney's wife and sons are a swarm of activity, picture perfect, the kids love their dad and mom. Mitt has been married to the same woman all his life. She has Lou Gherig's disease and so is a survivor and in the US fighting an illness is a positive mark of courage.

Rudy Giuliani's kids won't speak to him. His is daughter may be an Obama supporter but she doesn't have the spine to come right out and admit it. Rudy has been married three times and his latest wife the former Judith Nathan, who was the subject of lot's of media attention when, as mayor of New York, he had an affair with her, has gotten some very, VERY rough coverage.

John Edwards is pulling his kids from school in the fall to accompany him and his sick wife on the campaign trail. His wife has been used as a surrogate to attack Hillary Clinton on such issues as "Edwards is stronger on women's issues than Hillary" is sometimes seen as a better politician as John and he's gotten some criticism for "hidig behind her skirt" in attacks against Hil.

Fred Thompson is married to a woman, Jeri Thompson, 24 years younder than he is. Before his rumored campaign began (i.e. when he was just a former Senator and a high priced lobbyist) she was a "hotttie", very attractive and sexy - the New York Times called her a "trophy wife". The question came up as to how she'd work out as a first lady? Comparisons to the French President's wife have been made (she is very independent, has her own foreign policy, often skips dinners and other social events where she (and he) were invited, for example at the Bush family compound in Maine. Here is one analysis of Mrs. Thompson:

"Campaign sources described Jeri Thompson as firm, straightforward and assured of what she wants to do, but unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of campaigning. Many decisions have been held up awaiting her approval, they say, from routine matters such as travel schedules and car manifests to weightier ones including direct-mail efforts, personnel choices and the timing of the campaign kickoff."

Thompson's professional campaign staff has been very catty about he direct involvement in the day-to-day planning for his campaign launcg "from her kitchen table". see; "RealClearPolitics HorseRaceBlog, By Jay Cost"

And the qustion has come up what kind of a presidential spouse Bill Clinton would make. Rmember he is still reviled and hated by many Americans for his behavior in the White House and for his ignoring the first World Trade Center attack and treating it like a criminal event not the first of a terrorist plot against the United States.

Pat Nixon (Pres Nixon's wife) was a sad figure with bouts of heavy drinking.

Ronald Reagan's kids trashed him for most of his eight years as president and people felt sorry for him and Nancy. Reagan was also divorced. Nancy consulted an astrologer for important advice for the pres.

Hillary was not exactly a tranquil pond during the eight years of Bill Clinton.

So, presidential spouses (all women so far) are a mixed blssing. Candidate spouses and children are also something to work into the equation.

How Wrong We can be!

2007-08-11T05:32:00.000-07:00

http://interestingtimes.blogspot.com/ had a post just before the 2004 Iowa caucuses. The table (inserted left above) showed Vermont Governor Howard Dean ahead.

The blogger on this poll said "I'll keep crunching the numbers, but I don't expect any real changes here before the Iowa Caucuses (barring unforeseen circumstances)."

The line chart (right top) showed Dean at the top of a trent rising and Mass Senator John Kerry in a plunging line. See screen snip.

Of course, Dean collapsed on caucus night and Kerry went on to win the nomination!

My warning to you is don' believe anything you read before caucus night is over.

Iowa caucus participants are very private and independent. They also lie to pollsters. I have been told by many people over the years that they DELIBERATELY tell poll callers wrong information!

Of course many people have no land line - many have only a cell phone - and are not in the phone book anymore. Pollsters are scrambling to get good samples by other means - normally polls are done with a phone book or a list of people (for example likely caucus participants) and randomly choosing names and phoning them. What to do if folks are not listed anymore?

Caution folks!

More South Carolina Primary Stuff.

2007-08-10T05:43:00.000-07:00

While I respect the comment of my colleague Todd Shaw, I still think that if the Europeans, Canadians and other democracies can do a pre-election candidate selection and a general election in 3 months with campaign finance limitations American voters are getting more time with more money spent to "inform" them about candidates than any nation on Earth.

We need to shorten (not lengthen and spread out)the election process!

GOP picks Jan. 19thS.C. keeps 1st in South primary
By Yvonne Wenger (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Friday, August 10, 2007

COLUMBIA — A move Thursday to ensure South Carolina Republicans are the first in the South to vote in the 2008 presidential primaries might have Sen. Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani competing with Santa Claus.

State Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson set the GOP primary for Jan. 19, potentially pushing Iowa and New Hampshire to schedule their voting dates into mid-December and early January, respectively.

"We wanted to retain the integrity of the process," said Dawson, who made his announcement at the Statehouse in Concord, N.H. "We're firmly committed to being the first in the South."

Dawson said Florida precipitated the move by scheduling its primary Jan. 29, jumping ahead of South Carolina's GOP primary that had been tentatively scheduled for Feb. 2. Democrats in South Carolina will still vote Jan. 29.

However, by law New Hampshire's primaries and Iowa's caucuses must be first in the nation.
"Florida has really thrown everything into turmoil," said Iowa State University political scientist Steffen Schmidt,who was vacationing in Charleston. "Everybody wants to be first but everybody can't be first."

Schmidt said the timing will present unique challenges to the presidential candidates in a wide-open race that's already unprecedented by its early nature. In this race, there will be little time for the candidates to catch their breath between the first two contests, other early states such as South Carolina and Super Tuesday on Feb. 5, Schmidt said. Voters in as many as 20 states will head to the polls that day.

"Everything is happening so fast," Schmidt said. "I think some of them are going to be dead ducks by the time they leave Iowa."

University of South Carolina political scientist Todd Shaw said he's worried about what the schedule will mean for voters.

"All the more pressure it puts upon the voter to make up his or her mind early," Shaw said. "Traditionally, they can wait until after Christmas to really congeal their conclusions. Now, they have to worry about the holiday season and who they are going to select as their nominee for president, in some cases."

The 2008 Iowa Caucus is scheduled to be held Jan. 14, but state law requires it be set at least eight days before any other contest.

"Iowa will go first, that is the bottom line," Iowa Gov. Chet Culver said in a statement. Iowa Republican and Democrat parties said they would wait to see what action New Hampshire takes before considering rescheduling their date.

New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary has been widely reported to be scheduled Jan. 22. But Secretary of State Bill Gardner told The Associated Press no date's been set and that he has no plans to do so anytime soon. The state is required by law to hold its primaries a week before any other.

South Carolina Republicans could face sanctions by the Republican National Committee. According to the committee's rules, the states have a window between Feb. 5 and July 28 to individually schedule the caucuses and primaries. States that set the contests outside that window risk losing delegates at the convention.

Still, maintaining South Carolina's first-in-the-South GOP primary is wonderful news for the state, said Lin Bennett, chairwoman of the Charleston County Republican Party.

"That's our legacy," she said. "We've been so successful in picking the presidential nominees, and it's a really a good thing for South Carolina voters."

They Moved the Cheese! The South Carolina Primary, that is!

2007-08-09T09:04:00.000-07:00

Washington Post Posting.

Oh boy am I gonna enjoy including the decision by South Carolina to move it's primary up in my fall semester course on the Iowa Caucuses! http://www.iowacaucusclass.com

The media is all jiggly and jiggy about this unspeakable "front loading" of caucuses and primaries!

Don't you colleagues remember that IN THE US ELECTIONS ARE RUN BY THE STATES!

That's right, not the federal government!

And primaries and caucuses are in theory not run by government at all but by state political parties.

But now these caucuses and primaries have become "economic development' events or maybe they've been "Rodney Dangerfielded" - "WE GET NO RESPECT if we are later in the season".

The truth is that we have now opened a Pandora's box of undisciplined and ambitious states running the show.

Once the dam breaks it becomes a mob scene.

Ugly stuff but fun to watch as an analyst and as a journalist (17 years as Dr Politics on WOI at Iowa State).

Let the lions into the coliseum!

It's about to get interesting.

Southern Charm? Y'all.

2007-08-08T05:35:00.000-07:00

Dr Schmidt:
"Can you speak at all toEdwards style - -how is Southern polite country charm goes over way betterin Iowa, or at least has in the past .. where as the Granite state hasgiven a much more frosty reception, they seem a bit more suspicious or cynical ... which may or may not give Edwards good reason to focus more on Iowa than New Hampshire..."

Answer: Yes - in Iowa Southern Charm and good looks, AND having lived in Iowa for 4 years, and having lobbied every politician in the state for that long, and having been the VP candidate for Kerry those have also helped in Iowa. (We'll have to see how long he stays on top - remeber Howard Dean?! He was on top, fund raising like krazee, had all the "deaniaks" working for him, had all the adrenalin, was on the attack against Bush full bore before any of the other Democratic candidates in 2004 started they attacks, and ... well he tanked in Iowa and then evaporated. :-D

But the Southern style is not going over well IN THE SOUTH EVEN! I am in Charleston as I blog this and African American voters in the South don't necessarily trust southern "charm" from white lawyers - they understand that it tells you little about what's inside. .. so Hillary and Barak are doing well with no Southern Charm.

The puzzle has always been why Edwards, from South Carolin and Senator from North Carolina does not "own" the South.

Reporter Question: "Is a more negative Edwards compared to the 2004 caucuses when he stood out as "the nice guy" who was all positive and did not attack his rivals fro the nomination, ... could that hurt him in Iowa and New Hampshire where people like "nice"?

My Answer: A more negative Edwards worries some people BUT this is not 2004 and you cannot run same campaign or be the same candidate you were the last time anyway! Just look at McCain!

So, Edwards supporters understand that with a huge field of Dems they need to start slashing each other.

I for one, think they need to accelerate the negative campaigning.

My advice to them: - "Just say what you are thinking about each other!" Such as:
Vegan Little Person - "Exploding Congressman - can you say shuffleboard?!" - "Conniving, slick trial lawyer - eight more years of THEM? Yuck!", "Hypocritical Trial Lawyer", "Christopher WHO?", or more generally from the top 3 "What are you "munchkins" doing in this race?", etc. etc.

Inscrutable Iowa Straw Poll?

2007-08-07T06:23:00.001-07:00

Yes, there will be a GOP Straw Poll on Aug 11, 2007 in Ames Iowa.

Is it inscrutable? (For those of you from Mars that means "not easily understood, mysterious").

Not really.

Just follow me here!

No, it is not an official political event but it is still intriguing.One of the things I will be watching like a hawk is how well Rudy Giuliani and John McCain do in the poll. Oh, sure, I know they are not officially participating but that's tough cookies for them because they and Fred Thompson and all the other GOP wannabes are going to be on the straw poll ballot. So, by NOT participating they are in danger of "coming in last".

If you look at how John McCain did in the 1999 Straw Poll, the last time the White house race in the GOP was open, you will see what I mean.

McCain was 10th with 83 votes even though he was not participating. A BIG LOSER!

The Iowa Straw Poll is unique.

You (GOP prez wannabe) are going to be "running" whether you are running or not! McCain and Giuliani will either come in very low on this list or they will encourage a stealth campaign in order to pump up those numbers and being able to spin it as "an amazing result since I was NOT a candidate" or dismiss the low numbers by insisting "I was not a candidate".

An interesting problem!

I will also be carefully scrutinizing how well the new front runner Mitch Romeny does. Will he blow away the field the way W Bush did in 1999? Bush received 31% of the vote, bested Steve Forbes and Elizabeth Dole who came in second an third, and pin-pricked the balloon of Lamar Alexander, Dan Quayle, Gary Bauer, Alan Keys, Pat Buchanan, Orrin Hatch, ... then dead last Kasich, and Smith (no one remembers who they were!). If Romney gets 31% he will have won.

Finally, I will be watching the "munchkins" - the low ranking candidates who hope to break through with a better than expected placing - Huckabee in third place would be huge!

So, I feel very str9ngly that we should not dismiss the Iowa Straw Poll as a gimmick or "just" a fund raiser for the GOP.

There are nuances and very interesting side stories that we should watch as we examine the road to the White House 2008. The Straw Poll is one of those.

Did You Get "Tubed"?!

2007-07-24T05:43:00.000-07:00

Submitted to Who-TV, Des Moines Plog.

Did you get “Tubed” on Monday night, July 23, 2007?

I did.

It was inevitable that we would all get politically “Tubed” sooner or later. The YouTube debate in Charleston, South Carolina was a first.

When a “phenom” becomes huge, and it does not get more Gynormous than Google/YouTube, it is inevitable that we try it out on politics. More on this later.

The YouTube event was interesting and it was fun. It was colorful. It was not a debate.

“What you say!?”

That’s correct IT WAS NOT A DEBATE! (Can you hear me now that I’m shouting?).

A debate is “… a process of inquiry and advocacy seeking reasoned judgment on a proposition. Debate allows for two or more sides advocating their positions on a given issues under a set of rules with some kind of judgment to follow from a judge or audience.”

I did not see too many characteristics of a debate on Monday night.

Such as?!

Well, for example Mike Gravel spontaneously catching on fire as he flamed all of his opponents for selling out to big money. That was fun but he does need his medications adjusted.

Most of what happened was not because the questions were video recorded and posted on YouTube as opposed to having the same people ask the same questions in the Citadel auditorium where the event took place.

Most of the interesting stuff happened because when you stick a bunch of presidential wannabes on a stage, things will slip out in unexpected ways – both positive and helpful to candidates and not so good (see Gravel above).

One interesting incident was the question to Senator Clinton on how she would deal with governments where women are not accepted in positions of power and are oppressed such as Muslim countries.

Clinton deftly answered that she has met with many leaders in half of the countries in the world and that she would deal with this issue. The subtext was “If you want to meet me on the street corner tonight I’ll show you how I would deal with these people!”

A second interesting accident happened when a “Tuber” (that’s what we call them even when they are not “… a swollen region of an underground stem or root, usually modified for storing food, such as a potato) asked if Osama Obama would have direct talks with North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Chavez, etc.

Senator Obama said he would. Hillary said she would NOT unless the groundwork had been laid and something significant could come of talking to these Axes of Evil. Edwards said he agreed with Hillary.

That’s why they are ranked Hillary first, Edwards second, and Obama third.

Richardson did a nice job with why we can’t have Starbucks-like, standardized voting systems in every state – except that the real answer is that the US is a FEDERAL system of government so states have a lot of power and we don’t want the failed federal government (think FEMA, US Passport office, Iraq).

The one thing that is just intolerable are the air-heads on CNN who are, - “Oh my GOD, this was so cooeal, like, I LOVED it” – reporters especially the “Internet reporters” who stand in front of a huge plasma screen circling stuff we can’t wee at the receiving end and babbling endlessly about some “stuff” that’s on the new. I guarantee that this is NOT what my students want to see or hear; it is not what smart voters want to see or hear.

Well now that we have been “Tubed” I have some suggestions for CNN.

The next “debate” (NOT!) should be a FaceBook/MySpace debate. We will ask the candidates to post lots of pictures of themselves with their friends late on week end nights at bars and clubs in risqué poses preferably some of them showing their underwear peeking through.

After that I would highly recommend a “breakthrough” debate (NOT!) – a first ever – by having citizens text message (IM’ing) questions directly to each candidate, have CNN cameras hovering over each victim as they try to move their thumbs across the keys and answer in “Text Talk”, abbreviated English – Dennis Kucinich - “U R so rite. I wld pl out of IRQ by Jan. I know how to deal with those 4NR’s arnd the wlrd. Well, BB4N. LOL” (I hear that Apple is already planning an iPhone debate).

Finally, one of my students suggested that we have a “Pres. Candidate. CAN YOU DANCE?!” debate. Each candidate is allowed to choose a partner and do two dance routines – a Salsa/Merengue and a Waltz – and voters choose the winner by voting on-line. After all, these people are going to have to dance with the spouses of foreign leaders at White House receptions and soirees.

I give up!

Why not have “Reality Politics”? - Big Brother, House Guest, Pimp My Candidate (where do-over artists take each candidate and make them have a winning candidate look) and American Idol Candidate .

Oh yeah, by the way, Hillary Clinton won the YouTube show. Again. She can handle any format.

Why so @#$!~%^&*? Much Money?

2007-07-17T04:53:00.000-07:00

Bloomberg News recently asked me again about money and presidential politics. Here are some of my thoughts:

Question: Why are candidates spending SO much more money on the 2008 presidential caucus and primary races than in previous cycles?

Answer: This is an unprecedented presidential campaign because (1) it's the first open race (no incumbent President or VP running) since Eisenhower AND (2) there is no inheritor to the Republican party, (3) the Democrats have a political adversary and target whom they dislike (maybe hate) more than any adversary in 100 years so Dems are giving money in astonishing quantities.Another reason for ESS (The Early Spending Syndrome) is that this is the first election in American history that is so front loaded with killer primaries. This means that it is crucial for candidates do well in Iowa and New Hampshire AND SIMULTANEOUSLY be out of the starting gate for the Feb 5 super event.

All of that adds up to pouring money early to position yourself and to basically drown your opponents.

Question: How much cash must a viable contestant have a month or so ahead of the Iowa caucuses?

Answer: You don't need very much money in Iowa anytime in the cycle. The foolish candidates who have spent Gynormous amounts of money by bringing in their full national campaign org and TV ads fired shotgun style at all 3 million Iowan's when all they need to target are the 100 K or so caucus attendees are fools! All you need is a hotel room, a car, and one intern to line up get together's at homes, diners, and county fair's. Then you get all the free media you want. One reason they have been spending like drunken sailor's (especially John McCain!) is that this year they are using Iowa (and New Hampshire) as a megaphone for the entire nation.

In other words, their Iowa spending and Iowa events are really meant to get national media coverage and to get the BIG M - Momentum.

Question: If you were advising candidates, how would you suggest they deal with Florida and the Feb. 5 states in terms of ground operations & media buys?

Answer: Feb 5 is a must do killer day. Candidates need to have full bore operations up and running in all of the big delegate states that have moved primaries up early, long before the Iowa caucuses and the NH Primary.

If they don't they are politically dead!

Poor John McCain!

2007-07-10T05:25:00.000-07:00

July 2007.
Plogged (PresidentialBlog @ WHO TV, Des Moines, Iowa

Poor John McCain.

He’s been “overtaken by history”.

What I mean is that he WAS (past tense) the maverick, independent thinking, straight shooting war hero. He had principles and stuck with them and people admired him for saying what he thought was right and they liked it.

The problem is that he is still doing the same thing only now he is sticking with his guns on things that the public generally does not approve of or care about.

McCain-Feingold the campaign finance bill does not get him an ounce of credit. For two reasons.

First, it does not work. Second, the Supreme Court rules parts of it are unconstitutional. Ok, three reasons! The Republicans do not like this bill. So his score on that one is pretty much zero.

Then he jumped on board the derailed Immigration Reform Bill.

Well, need we say more?

The bill was an unenforceable mishmash compromise. (Often a compromise is like an animal designed by a committee!). Moreover, the Republican base hated it. But I repeat myself.

Then there is McCain’s support of the Bush surge in Iraq. Actually, McCain wanted a much bigger surge (probably the correct approach militarily but not politically in 2007). The COUNTRY hates it!

So, contributors have been keeping their hands buried in their pockets and the campaign piggy bank is running dry. Of course, he still has 2 million bucks which in my book is a LOT of money but in 2008 we will have a one BILLION dollar presidential race.

So, with Barak Obama raising over $30 million in the second quarter, Romeny in the money, Senator McCain appears to be headed for then political poor house and has fired a large percentage of his staff.

Some people say there is too much money in politics but I say that his overspending on campaign expenses and staff shows he is not a very smart money manager. I mean, would he spend tax money that way?

Also, I know for a fact that money contributions are a valid and important measure of confidence in a candidate.

The several Presidential “stock markets” (including a very good one at the U of Iowa) have been very active predictors of political success.

So, poor McCain lost his shine. He’s lost GOP support. He’s lost the stream of funding.

Very few donors (large or small) want to put their dollar on a guy who has downsized his campaign drastically and who appears to be headed for an early pull-out.

I will not use the word “loser” because McCain is a gentleman and a patriot. I will say that political supporters may not be seeing him anymore as a potential winner and therefore they will invest elsewhere.

Politics is an ever changing and cruel process. You have to always look forward over the horizon or you’ll be run over as he appears to have been.

Poor John McCain. Campaign finace reform only worked for him. He's getting less money to run.

Hillary Clinton Q and A

2007-06-08T09:04:00.001-07:00

June 2007 - Hillary will be in Iowa, Story Co. this week end. The reporter asked me the following questions.

How important is the visit of Hillary Clinton to Story County (Iowa) for her overall campaign?

Every visit by Clinton is important in building her support in Iowa. Story Co., home of the modern Iowa Caucuses, is an especially significant political pilgimage for Sen Clinton since she is not in first place in the Iowa polls.

Will Hillary win the democratic candidature and why?

It is Sen Clinton's to lose. She has the experience. She is exceptionally intelligent and well educated. She has the Bill Clnton political organization to help her. She is a woman and there is a lot of excitement about a first woman getting elected. Sen Obama is too inexperienced and would make a great VP on a Clinton ticket.

Will she win in Iowa? Who do you think will win and why?

She will come in 1, 2 or 3 which is all that's need to do well in Iowa and go on to win the national nomination. She needs to do VERY well in California, NY, Florida, New Jersey and other states that have huge numbers of delegates to the Dem national convention.How important is winning Iowa to getting the party ticket? Iowa plays a role but it may not be absolutel necessary to win the nomination because the season is so front loaded and (see above) very delegate rich states come so quickly that a strong campaign in those states can overcome a weaker showing in Iowa.

What are some of the weaknesses and strengths of Clinton and her campaign?

Strengths - see above. Weaknesses - many people don't like her personally. Many people do not want another 8 years of Hillary and Bill in the White House. Many leftist Democrats feel she has supported Bush on Iraq for too long and that she has been too moderate (i.e. Conservative) in her position on many issues.

Will Bill Clinton be a positive or negative aspect of her campaign and in what ways?

Bill clinton will be both. He has a huge network, is adored by many Democrats (and Independents) and he is a politica genius. Negative - see above. Clinton is still seen as "sleazy" by many voters including older Democrats who don't think that having your intern give you oral sex in the White House is dignified. In France, LAtin America, other places this might be the opposite!

Overall who do you predict has the strongest chances of winning the democratic presidential candidature?

I think Hillary Clinton has an excellent sht at the nomination. Edwards could do ok as well but he has also come under criticism lately for his $400 haircut and his work for a hedge fund. Barak Obama has a chance to get momentum if he can find his passionate and fully energetic speaking style again which he seems to have lost lately.

Those were my answers. Hold me accountable in Jan 2008!

Bipartisanship? Wassat?!?!

2007-05-06T04:08:00.000-07:00

Most students think Democrats are proenvironment and Republicans opposed.

That was not true in the past. Pres Theodore Roosevelt, "Teddy", was one of the biggest environmentalists in US history.

In my Coastal Policy class We study the first big surge of environmental laws in the United States. Everyone is surprised that Republican Richard Nixon and a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans were responsible for these laws:

"New Years Day, 1970, President Nixon signed into law the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Among other things, it required that federal agencies conduct thorough assessments of the environmental impact of all major programs. (This provision, duplicated ultimately at state and local levels across America, remains a cornerstone of environmental law.)" http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/helaw.asp

The first Earth Day was in 1970 as well.

Here are more Nixon laws:

"The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, commonly known as the Clean Water Act. From these laws there evolved a large body of environmental case law. Subsequent federal legislation, notably the Consumer Product Safety Act (1972), the Environmental Pesticide Control Act (1972), the Endangered Species Act (1973), the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974) ..." from NRDC web site.

So what's happened? Why do with think of Republicans as being so opposed to environmental action. Stay tuned!

Information Technology and Voting

2007-05-01T12:48:00.000-07:00

From press release.

"The arrival of Information technology promises to completely upend traditional voting regulation and make most voting laws obsolete," according to Dr Steffen schmidt, prof of pol sci at Iowa State University, who teaches Electronic Democracy and Identity Theft classes.

"The emerging and merging media mean that voters will be bombarded by campaign material that is almost impossible to detect and truly impossible to regulate such as advertisements and voting appeals delivered to voters through devices such as smart phones, PDA's, iPods and other devices, "said Schmidt. "This effectively means that campaigns or issue advocacy groups can drive messages including short video clips to voters 24-7 including on the day of the election and inside the voting stations which would violate laws against last minute campaigning in or near polling places."

Schmidt added that even if official campaigns are not doing so "viral campaigning", where people pass on information and links to each other through devices will deliver millions of clever and entertaining messages through you Tube, MySpace, FaceBook and other means. "There is absolutely no way to control this free speech without throwing the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee out the window", said Schmidt.

Hagel Runs for President - or Maybe Not.

2007-03-13T04:35:00.000-07:00

Sem. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has decided to run for president on the GOP party - or maybe not! He had a press conference everyone ran to cover and then said he would maybe announce something laater in the year. Preppy Bastard says on Wonkette the saucy blog: "Chuck Hagel: GIANT COCKTEASE."- Some people feel maybe he will run as an independent like Ross Perot. That would be interesting! (See his official biography after the blog below).

Hagel is the guy many independents (i.e No-Party) voters have been hoping for. As it turns out, he is also the "Old-John McCain" many of McCain's supporters have been waiting for since McCain himslef joined the Bush establishment especially on Iraq.

I've had more people call my radio show (Dr Politics - WOI radio) hoping Hagel would jump in than any other candidate who has not jumped in yet!

A Hagel run for the White House messes up everything in both parties! He sucks away many of the metrics that are worked into both the Dems and GOP strategists - independent minded, eclectic, pretty conservative voters who don't like the Bush sleaze factor (Halliburton, Katrina incompetence, general waste and fraud), don't like the Bush Iraq non-plan, but are socially fairly conservative.

Hagel gets a chunk of those voters and washes a lot of sand out from the foundation of other campaigns (Hagel is a respected "neighbor" of Iowa!).

But playing tease like this may have hurt his chances don't you think? I mean, it looks like he's indecisive and a fraudster (cleraly he led all the media on with his announcement that he would hold the press conference and then he puked on them. Never hurl on the media - never bite the hand that feeds you Sen. Hagel).

Let the fun begin!

From The Hagel Web Site.

Chuck Hagel, Nebraska’s senior U.S. Senator, is serving his second term in the United States Senate. Senator Hagel’s duties include membership on four Senate committees: Foreign Relations; Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; Intelligence and Rules.

Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, Hagel worked in the private sector as the President of McCarthy & Co., an investment banking firm based in Omaha, Nebraska, and served as Chairman of the Board of American Information Systems (AIS). Before joining McCarthy & Co., Hagel was President and Chief Executive Officer of the Private Sector Council (PSC) in Washington, D.C., Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the 1990 Economic Summit of Industrialized Nations (G-7 Summit) and President and Chief Executive Officer of the World USO.In the mid-1980's, Hagel co-founded VANGUARD Cellular Systems, Inc., a publicly traded corporation.

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated Hagel to serve as Deputy Administrator of the Veterans Administration, a nomination confirmed by the United States Senate. Hagel also served as Deputy Commissioner General of the United States for the 1982 World’s Fair. From 1977 through 1980, Hagel was Manager of Government Affairs for The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company in Washington, D.C. From 1971 to 1977, he was Administrative Assistant to Congressman John Y. McCollister (R-Nebraska). Beginning in 1969, Hagel worked as a newscaster and talk show host with radio stations KBON and KLNG in Omaha, Nebraska.

Hagel served in Vietnam with his brother Tom in 1968. They served side by side as infantry squad leaders with the U.S. Army’s 9th Infantry Division. Hagel earned many military decorations and honors, including two Purple Hearts.

Hagel has served on the Board of Trustees Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust and as Chairman of the $240 million Agent Orange Settlement Fund. His participation in civic, educational, and charitable organizations has included: Board of Directors, Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce; Chairman, 10th Anniversary Vietnam Veterans’ Memorial; Board of Directors and National Advisory Committee of the Friends of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial; Board of Directors of the Arlington National Cemetery Historical Society; Chairman of the Board of No Greater Love, Inc.; USO’s World Board of Governors; and the World USO Chairman’s Advisory Council.

He is a life member of the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.

Among the institutions for which Hagel serves as a Board or Advisory Committee member are: the Institute of Politics at Harvard University; International Republican Institute; the German Marshall Fund’s Trade and Poverty Forum; Director Emeritus, the Eisenhower World Affairs Institute; the Private Sector Council; the Ripon Society; the American Red Cross; Bread for the World; and the Council on Foreign Relations. Hagel is a Trustee at Bellevue University and Hastings College. Hagel is co-chairman of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund Corporate Council.

Hagel was the subject of a 2006 book by University of Nebraska professor Charlyne Berens entitled, Chuck Hagel: Moving Forward. He has received the Omaha World-Herald's 2005 - "Midlander of the Year" Award; the Washington Coal Club Annual Achievement Award; 2006 Luminosity Award from the Bonnie J. Addario Breath Away From the Cure Foundation; the University of Nebraska at Omaha's 2006 Alumni Award for Excellence in Public Service; 2006 Don Wagner Leadership Award; 2005 Marlin Fitzwater Excellence in Public Communication Award; 2005 Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Public Service Award; 2005 American Association of School Administrators Champion of Children Award; 2004 Edmund S. Muskie Distinguished Public Service Award; the Atlantic Council’s 2004 Award for Distinguished International Leadership; the Fragile X Research Foundation’s Research Beacon Award; the National Parent Teacher Association’s Outstanding Child Advocacy Award and the Committee for Education Funding’s Special Recognition Award; The University Club’s William Howard Taft Public Service Award; the European Institute’s Transatlantic Leadership Award; and the National School Board Association’s Special Recognition Award.

Among other honors Hagel has received are the 82nd Airborne Division Association's Recognition for the "National Airborne Day" Senate Resolution; the first annual Cordell Hull Award; the Horatio Alger Award from the Horatio Alger Association; The Vietnam Veterans of America Legislator of the Year Award; membership in the Consumers for World Trade Hall of Fame; the Center for the Study of the Presidency’s Distinguished Service Medal; The American Farm Bureau Federation’s Golden Plow Award; The Friend of the Farm Bureau Award; the Distinguished Alumni Award from the University of Nebraska at Omaha; an Honorary Doctorate of Public Service degree from the College of William and Mary; an Honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Creighton University; an Honorary Doctorate of Commerce from Bellevue University; the Secretary of Defense's Medal for Outstanding Civic Achievement, the first World USO Leadership Award; the University of Nebraska-Kearney George W. Norris Distinguished Lecturer Award; and the Small Business Administration’s Nebraska Veterans Advocate of the Year Award.

A fourth generation Nebraskan, Hagel was born in North Platte, Nebraska on October 4, 1946. He graduated from St. Bonaventure High School, Columbus, Nebraska, the Brown Institute for Radio and Television, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Hagel and his wife, Lilibet, have two children, daughter Allyn, 16, and son Ziller, 14.

best Case Scenario for Iraq - Read History of Civil War.

2007-01-17T12:46:00.000-08:00

A democratic, middle class, liberal, civilian, and secular Iraq was always the wet dream of a bunch of fool morons in Washington who probably were sharing in Rehnquists medications.

Where are the historical and regional roots for that to happen quickly (in 24 months after the dictator is gone) or even slowly (in 200 years)? Liberal democracy is not a product nations can choose like a car. They are largely organic - they grow from the social, political, and cultural "climate" of the region. And, stable democracy is NEVER achieved by having all the extreme, warring parties get together and split the differences. It is almost always the victory of someone (hopefully the "good guys").

Since it has not come to pass and we are not going to be there to somehow "Make it So" with military might, what's the best that can come out of this mess?

The US in the end probably actually no longer has an interest in a stable and unified Iraq if it would be under a radical Islamic coalition government. (That's no doubt the only way it would be a strong government). What's worse than Sunni and Shiia joining forces and creating a unified anti western front?

An Iraq that is divided and an Islamic community that is at war with itself and that sucks Iran into a regional mess is actually in some weays very favorable for the US, the West, secularists, and even some of the states in the region who fear a strong Iraq.

The US will probably pull back most of its forces to northern Iraq and protect the Kurdish oil and the Kurdish areas. And, it will pull to Basra and protect an area of southern Iraq and exportable oil throiugh the Gulf. The US will probably keep significant force in the areas of Kuwait, Djibouti, Manama, Bahrain, and on the 2 carrier groups that will soon be in the Persian Gulf.

This gives the US a powerful and flexible presence so it can protect Saudi Arabia and other countries from forces spilling across to them (the US unchallenged air power and can blow away any amassed forces like that).

This will make the United States the only broker in the area to prevent all out war and to shield against the Iranian nuclear weapons when they come on line.In the meantime in Iraq, as others have said, a Spanish civil war or an Algerian civil war is the most realistic scenario.

You can Google those two wars if you don't know about them.

Basically the wars were cruel and terribly bloody as civil wars and maybe a million died. In the end one side won and established power. The losers lived with their defeat.

The Europeans did not greatly get entangled in Spain and the French (Algeria) kept their fingers in the conflicts but in the end (after De Gaulled pulled out French forces) NOT as direct actors but as manipulators.

In history one death is a tragedy but a million deaths are destiny.

It's still a nasty world out there!

Sleep on that one!

Isolationism? Is it a "Good Thing"?

2007-01-12T03:57:00.000-08:00

So, we are now in the middle of a nasty war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most Americans agree that we need to be in Afghanistan. That's where Osama (not OBAMA) planned the 9-11 attacks, recruited and trained the terrorists that struck.

Most Americans are doubtful that we should still be (or ever went into) Iraq.

So what about:
A. North Korea which is defying all international mandates to cease and desist in developing numclear weapons? A nuclearized North Korea will destabilize and raise the stakes in all of Asia and probably lead to a nuclear-weapon's armed Japan. (Yes, Japan has such advanced technology that the latest reports I saw indicate they could take that technology and make nuclera weapons within 6 months maximum).

What about:
B. Iran which is proceeding against all United Nations orders (resolutions) to stop their nuclear weapons development program whcih would destabilize the entire Middle East and probably push Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and some other countries to also "go nuke"!

What about:
C. Somalia and the south-eastern tip of Africa where war and al Qaeda terrorist camps are located? Somalia is the Afghanistan of Africa.

What about:
D. Venezuela where Hugo Chavez, the populist president is creating a new Cuba, eleminating all political opposition, nationalizing private companies, and planning a hostile, world-wide campaign against the United States? (Yes, Chavez may seem like a clown but he is a VERY RICH clown with vast petroleum reserves and a deep hatred of the US- he visited Saddam Husseing, Ghaddafy in Lybia, and even some of the knuckle-dragging dictators in the former Soviet Republics)

Should the US build up and use its intelligence, covert operations, and military might to try and reduce the threats from any of these (or other unlisted) dangerous places? If not then who will, the French?! If yes where does the US need to push back, how much, and do the Democrats and Republicans BOTH agree that we are the world leader and have some responsibility as a policeman of the world?

This is the puzzle that faces us all.

Democrats DO NOT have a Senate Majority!

2006-12-22T11:22:00.000-08:00

How many times do I have to repeat this ...?

Democrats - senators elected on the Democratic party ticket - DO NOT have a majority of seats in the US Senate! But, they may have a majority of votes when they are sworn in and start work in January of 2007.

Why?

Becuase Bernie Sanders, a Socialist who runs as an Indepoendent from Vermont - no, he REALLY is a Socialist in the best, European sense of the word and he is proud of that but it's too hard to get votes so he runs as an Independent- and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who also got elected as an Independent, will vote with the Democrats (and snuggle up to them to get offices and parking spaces and committee assignments). Yeah, an Independent counts for nothing in a Congress where ony a Democrat or Republican can function.

Now there may be a new problem on the horizon.

Democrat Tim Johnson, a 59-year-old US Senator from South Dakota suffered a stroke in December of 2006 and went in for surgery. If he can't serve and resigns his seat he will be replaced by someone appointed by South Dakota's governor who is a Republican. It is traditional for governors to ignore the voters coice of party and appoint someone from their party which means it would be a Republican. If that happens the 51-49 majority in the Senate (51 only because two Independents, Sanders and Lieberman are expected to vote with the Democrats) would become a 50-50 tie. If any votes are 50-50 Vice President Cheney comes in an votes to break the tie and from what I can tell he would pretty much vote a straight party ticket with the Republicans.

So, remember Dr. Politics lesson -

The Democrats only have 49 Senators - the same as the Republicans. But, they get votes from the 2 Independents who, if I was either one of them, will be getting many, MANY special earmarked projects for Vermont and Connecticut. How about the largest wind and solar powered research facilty in the world and the World Maple Syrup Museum for Vermont? And, a big expansion of the Nuclear Submarine Electric Boat company shipyards in Groton, Connecticut?

Ain't fate wonderful!?

How do you predict a landslide political shift?

2006-10-21T15:52:00.000-07:00

A few weeks before the 2006 election we are looking at public opinion polls, at the closness of races around the country for House, Senate, and governorships, and at the real-life events that shape elections;

The deteriorating situation in Iraq with mounting attacks and casualties.
The House page sex scandal in which a congressman wrote sexual e-mail and text messages to under aged students.
The general sense that the Bush administration is incompetent in every way - the FEMA Hurricane Katrina relief effort being the methaphor for government incompetence.
The complete and record breaking low approval ratings of the US Congress which hit 17% this week - 17%!! That's half of the approval rating of the news media!
The mailing out three weeks before the November election of a 107 page, confusing, stupid and ridiculous booklet called "Medicare & You" sent to all American qualifying for Medicare. Only someone with a PhD in bureaucracy could understand this gobble-de-gook and actually take advantage of health care opportunities.

The question is ... can we predict a landslide victory for the Democrats who are the "out party"- out of the White House, out of the House, out of the Senate, and out of the Supreme Court?

The out party (not responsible by virtue of being the minority party, should technically be favored by voters embittered and disappointed by the failure of the federal government over the oast 12 years of Republican control of the Congress and 6 years of GOP control of the White House.

So what could derail this analysis?

The most important factor is the "power of incumbency" - those who seek reelection to public office have been anointed with a renewal of their job by a whopping 90+%.

The pundits - "wise" commentators, (or at least "wiseguys"), and analysts - all seem to agree that the Democrats should do very well.

It will be interesting to see if the conventional wisdom pans out on election night. If it does the tools of predicting turnover will be confirmed. If they fail we will be going back to the drawing board to devise more accurate predictors.

Of course if the Republicans lose control of the House and Senate all will change and Pres. Bush will be in deep trouble. There are many Democrats (and Americans) who feel that he has violated the Constitution and may merit impeachment.

North Korea. A Partisan Issue or just a PROBLEM?

2006-10-16T18:06:00.000-07:00

Ok, so we know that North Korea exploded a nuke (October 2006).

We also know that North Korea has developed missiles capable fo hitting the US West Coast (and, of course, South Korea, Japan, and other neighbors who, by the way, are freaked out about this capability). They tested them and they seemed to fly ok.

The question that came up was "Would the Democrats - say Bill Clinton, or Hil Clinton, or John Edwards, or ... but I digress ..) handle this problem differently from the way the Republicans are doing it?"

The answer is - what difference would it make?

North Korea's leader is determined to have nukes so this poor, miserable country can be "taken seriously" as a player on the world stage. Honestly, I believe that there is no strategy - such as "bilateral talks" with the USA - that will distract the N Korean government from giving up nuclear weapons.

Bill and Hillary Clinton claim that if only Bill was still in charge he could have charmed Kim Jong Il, the self indulgent leader of the North, to give up on the only thing that makes this starving country worth even five second of our time.

Should the US talk "directly" to North Korea?

It does not matter!

North Korea is on a path to becoming a nuclear power (albeit a minor, irrelevant one).

So is Iran and I am afraid to say it, I think Hugo Chavez wants Venezuela to have the "Big One" too.

The NY Times had a very scary article about the new wave of nuclear powers who'd like to be part of the "club" of big boys/girls who posess the ultimate toy. Such a shame. This is one toy that we need to keep in the box and NOT let out!

I wonder how excited the Democrats are about inheriting the White House in 2008 and all the incredible problems that come with that job? I do personally think it is good for parties to alternate power. In a democracy (you can look this up!) it is very important for power to circulate or alternate between the major players. Single party rule is a bad, bad idea.

But, if I were Hillary (or John Edwards, Tom Vilsack, Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy, Al Sharpton, Evan Bayh, John Kerry, or whoever..) I'd be very worried about N Korea and Eye Ran (which will also have nukes soon)!

I think Pres. Bush should send Bill Clinton to Pyongyang. See how far he gets!

Arnold gets hacked!

2006-09-16T05:05:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles Times reported (Sept 2006) that in a private meeting, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican Governor of California, said that a fellow Republican of Puerto Rican descent, Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, was passionate because of her ethnicity. The conversation was recorded by one of his staff people.

Arnold said, “I mean Cuban, Puerto Rican, they are all very hot. They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it.” He was comparing her to a fellow bodybuilder.

These comments caused a huge uproar even thought Ms Garcia said she was not at all offended. Race is such a sensitive area of American society that the remarks were sure to be hot.

But how did the LA Times get this story since the conversation took place in a private meeting?

The campaign organization of Democratic candidate for governor, Phil Angelides, who was running against Schwarzenegger said that it was the source of audio files.

Ah ha! So this is all part of a political war; Dirty politics; Anything goes campaigning in America.

The files had been put on a governor'sweb site. The California Highway Patrol launched an investigating to see if the files were illegally purloines by the Angelides campaign. Schwarzenegger’s communications director, Adam Mendelsohn, said the Web site from which the files were downloaded was not supposed to be publicly accessible. But he agreed that it "... was not as secure as it ought to be .." No Duh!

The Angelides campaign said they had gotten a link to some audio files in a press release from the governors office. They then just started working backwards by eliminating slashes on the address line on the browser and hit the sensitive spot with the confidential files. YIKES! That's way too easy!

My question is "Why the heck did the Gov's people put any files but especially private and confidential (and sensitive) discussion like this on a WEB SITE?! Might as well film these meetings and upload them to YouTube!

The digital age is great and the Internet has become a huge tool for politics - campaigning, fund raising, signing up volunteers, "Meeting Up" people for campaigns, etc. BUT, many campaign or political people are really not ready for "prime Internet time" and the security issues is probably the single most critical part. What's missing is properly managing the security part of information technology in politics.

Arnold, you need to spank your staff!

A Clinton Democratic Party?

2006-09-03T06:05:00.000-07:00

Blogger and journalist Stephen Pizzo http://www.stephen.pizzo.com/ wrote an interesting piece about the rumor that the Clinton's are by-passing the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and building their own Democratic party. Here is what he wrote

"I heard the other day that the Clintonians, led by that little sycophant Rham Emmanuel, are setting up their own parallel DNC in order to cut the Dean wing out of the 08 action and thereby triangulate Hillary into the top spot on the 08 ticket. . If this is true it needs to get more attention than it has so far. Because if Hillary is the Dem choice in 08 we get at least 4-more years of GOP rule."

I have heard the same rumblings as we start looking past the 06 election and eyes are turning to the presidential contest in 08. (of course former Clintonista Harold Ickes launched a data warehouse in competition with the DNC voter turnout efforts several months ago as a profit making companyparty funded by billionaire George Soros. So, Dean has sniper fire coming from all directions).

In fact, it's not just the Clinton's who are at odds with Howard Dean as head of the Democratic Party. I have been amazed at how divided Democrats are over the direction the party should take to beat the GOP. On my radio show callers representing several sides of the Dem party, call in and regularly bash each other. (My show- "Dr. Politics" on WOI Public Radio http://www.woi.org/Stream.html Live Monday's at 9-10 a.m. Central time, http://www.woi.org/archive.html scroll down for archives of selected programs).

The Clinton faction now also seems potentially pitted against the Gore machine. Al Gore is suddenly very visible and many of us are hearing that he may be a stealth candidate for 2008 - talkin' environment, goin' on MTV Music Awards, writing a book and producing a film, but really building a new political persona for a comeback.

In Iowa, Hillary and Senator Edwards have led the polls for the 08 slot. Sen. Joe Biden may qualify for Iowa in-state tuition he's been here so often!

McCain is the lead Republican today with a big surprise, Mayor Rudy Guiliuani also doing well! Of course, Condoleeza Rice was way ahead of all the other Republicans for 08 in another recent poll - she's not running but she's hot!

Stay tuned. It's gonna be a long, crowded and expensive 2 years till 08!

Who are YOU excited about?

Nevada: The Second Caucus for 2008

2006-07-27T04:32:00.000-07:00

July 27, 2006. This week the Democrats decided to put the State of Nevada right after Iowa for the 2008 presidential contests. This violates New Hampshire law which requires the New Hampshore promary to be # 2 after Iowa with one week between the two.

Why did they do this?

Iowa and New Hampshire are too white. Nevada is about 25% Hispanic (the other state in the running for second place in the race for the white house was Arizona which is very Hispanic and very Native American).
Also Nevada is a Western State which would force candidates to test their message and personality in the "west".
Nevada has a unique service (and gambling) economy which forces candidates to talk about new issues.
As opposed to Iowa which is losing people, Nevada is the fastest growing state in population.
Finally Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada (powerful minority leader in the Senate) wants to bring the attention and good business of an early caucus to his state!

I've gotten a ton of media calls and many people are all in a knot over this especially in New Hampshire. (No I am not bragging so just cool it! I have been doing pres caucus and selection analysis for 36 years and it is not a big deal to be interviewed by the BBC, CNN, CBC, New York Times, etc.).

I think it's ok to jiggle the caucus/primary schedule. Nothing lasts forever.

South Carolina will probably also be an early primary right after New Hampshire. Good! The Democrats need to select someone to run for president who can run strong in the real South!

I say, shake up the system and get a better measure of which Democrat can successfully and win a national campaign.

The solution to Red and Blue division.

2006-06-18T06:53:00.000-07:00

Schmidt on Crossfire

I promised to reveal the secret of why politics is so divided in the United States - the socalled red and blue phenomenon.

Reason number one is that only two parties overwhelmingly dominate politics - only Democrats or Republicans really have a chance to win elections. This means American politics is "dyadic" - i.e. two - and therefore debate tends to become "bi-polar". The pulling force is left and right. That spells confrontation.

Reason number two is that the elites in the media and in other areas of American life no longer dominate politics and can no longer moderate these divisive forces that pull left and right. The media has become an inciter of "the fight" in politics like baiting a dog. Have you ever seen three political people interviewed when hot issues are covered by CNN or by the networks? No. It is always like a sports metaphor with two teams (or two nasty political activists) - and there can only be one winner.

In the eyes of the media politics is like boxing, fencing, professional wrestling or a cock fight for that matter.

In fact, the red and blue states paradigm is so appealling to the media because it's graphically simple and can be deployed like a major sporting event where you can keep score on how the "teams" are doing. Red and Blue, left and right, liberal and conservative, then become a self-fulfilling prophesy of increasing divisiveness and conflict.

The most telling example of this pathology was the CNN Show Crossfire. The sole purpose was to force guests and hosts to get into conflicts, say nasty things and demean themselves. It's a miracle that guests did not physically launch at each other the way they do on trash shows such as Maury Povich. When I was on during the 2004 Iowa Cacuses the hosts had no interest in information and clarification but instead they wanted me to say nasty things about Iowa and politicians. It was interesting but also not constructive. (Picture above).

So what's the answer?

We need at least four strong and realistic parties - a right wing party, a leftists progressive party, and two moderate parties of some sort. The shape of a square (4 parties in different corners of the quare) is not a confrontational design. A line that runs left-right is by definition bipolar. This could happen if the GOP and Dems implode and other parties attract enough voters so that their candidates get pluralities and win governorships, congressional seats (there is after all one Socialist Congressman!), and maybe even win some presidential races.

My other point has to be that in poll after poll Americans are more more subtly divided than just right and left or liberal and conservative. Yet, those in these "shaded" areas, the subtle blends of red and blue which we are calling the purple Americans have no place else to go.

What are the chances that Democrats and Republicans will be seriously challenged by several mass-based and electorally successful competitors?

Almost none because both parties have so skewed election laws and the format of single-members, winner-take-all districts that third parties and fourth parties havean insurmountable obstacle to overcome. (see alternative representation and voting models in the chapter on campaigns and elections in my book American Government and Politics Today 2006-2007 Edition, Wadsworth Publishing. You can order it from the Amazon link on this blog).

So, enjoy the negative, polarized, conflict-based, politics. It's gonna get worse before it gets better.

Deep Divisions.

2006-06-16T13:59:00.000-07:00

Deep division have now become the hallmark of American national politics. We have all heard endlessly about the "red" (Republican dominated) and "Blue" (Democrat dominated) states.

We also know that the Democrats and Republicans seem to have drawn a line in the sand and can hardly agree on anything.

This week as I write this the Democrats publicly showed their rift when New York Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton and Massachussets Democratic Senator John Kerry took diametrically opposed positions on ending us military activities in Iraq. They were speaking to a group of very liberal Democrats in New York and it was interesting to see Sen. Clinton get roundly "boooed" by the crowd when she argued that the US cannot quickly pull out of Iraq. Kerry was cheered when he said the US should start a pull out as quickly as possible.

Clinton represents the "pragmatic" line in the Democratic Party, arguing that the US must stabilize the situation in Iraq and provide continued military support. She argues that to win national elections Democrats have to be "strong" on defense. Kerry has now come out in favor of rapid pull our by American forces and believes that Americans are tired of Iraq and that Democrtas should have a clear alternative to President Bush. He is trying to appel to the more liberal base of the party.

Why is there so much confusion and division in the two parties? If you don't get the right answer came back to my blog and I'll tell you (warning: it's not a pretty picture!)

For students of American politics this is THE spectator sport to watch over the next two years as American move towards the 2008 presidential election. This will be one of the most interesting contests in a generation. Do you know why? - "Since Pres. Eisenhauer" is the clue. - Stay tuned to my blog for this one too.

Get out your scorecard and see how each party divides up on the hard issues such as Iraq, immigration, taxes, health care, and the hot social issues such as gay marriage and abortion. It's more fun than American Idol!