The more things change

One will find widespread agreement to the assertion that the Republican Party of today is a very different beast than the one of 100 years ago during Teddy Roosevelt's era. The same could be said of the Democrat Party.

And yet, here's a snippet from the beginning of the Democratic Party Platform in 1908:

We rejoice at the increasing signs of an awakening throughout the country. The various investigations have traced graft and political corruption to the representatives of the predatory wealth, and laid bare the unscrupulous methods by which they have debauched elections and preyed upon a defenseless public through the subservient officials whom they have raised to place and power.

The conscience of the nation is now aroused to free the Government from the grip of those who have made it a business asset of the favor-seeking corporations. It must become again a people's government, and be administered in all its departments according to the Jeffersonian maxim, "equal rights to all; special privileges to none."

"Shall the people rule?" is the overshadowing issue which manifests itself in all the questions now under discussion.

Thank goodness we no longer have to worry about politicians making government "a business asset of the favor-seeking corporations" and we can have faith that we are free of "debauched elections."

Oh wait a minute.

The platform goes on to address:

• the Republican mismanagement of the economy
• the abuse of power of the Republican Speaker of the House
• the federal budget deficit under Republican rule
  
• Republican misuse of patronage
• campaign finance reform
• the rights of states
• tariff reform
• trusts reform (a call to break corporate monopolies)
• railroad and banking regulation
• calling for the federal income tax
• labor and legal injunctions reform (including "We favor the eight hour day on all Government work")
• the merchant marine
• the Navy
• the right of U.S. citizens abroad
• civil service
• pensions
• the establishment of a federal health bureau
• the establishment of agricultural and mechanical colleges
• the popular election of Senators
• Oklahoma is welcomed as a state
• support for the ongoing Panama Canal
• regulations of federal grazing lands
• federal management of navigable waterways
• federal aid for maintenance of post roads
• regulation of the telegraph and telephone industries
• conservation of natural resources ("the enforcement of which Mr. Roosevelt has vainly sought from a reluctant party")
• the Philippines ("We condemn the experiment in imperialism as an inexcusable blunder which has involved us in enormous expense, brought us weakness instead of strength, and laid our nation open to the charge of abandoning a fundamental doctrine of self-government.")
• "Alaska and Porto Rico"
  
• Pan-American Relations
• Asiatic Immigration ("we are opposed to the admission of Asiatic immigrants who can not be amalgamated with our population")
• Foreign Patents

Hey, with just a couple minor changes, the Democrats can reuse this 100 year-old platform for 2008!

The Chicago 10

I heard an intriguing interview with Brett Morgen, the director of the new documentary, Chicago 10.

It is a documentary about the protests at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago and the ensuing trial of the "Chicago 10" who were charged with, among other things, inciting riot. It is a different take on the documentary form. The trial portions are animated with voice actors reading from the trial's transcripts. It contains contemporary music and gives hardly any political context to the 1968 convention. The historian in me bristles at the notion that a documentary wouldn't put the appropriate historical context of its subject, but Morgen explains in the interview that he is seeking to make the documentary relevant to today versus a history lesson.

I haven't been able to see a movie in the theater since nearly a year, but I hope to catch this one.

Pelosi dismisses Obama and Clinton shared ticket

Here's the end of a recent interview with Nancy Pelosi. When she pauses it's clear she is wishing she didn't go there, but then decides to finish her thought anyways. I think it is safe to say that Pelosi is a bit irritated with the Clinton campaign. Earlier in the interview (shown in full here) she discusses the need for both campaigns to realize the Democrats have to be able to win in November and to cool down. She says in the middle: "There's a lot at stake; the presidency for sure. We must have a Democratic president, but how these races proceed can have an impact as to whether we will carry the Congress of the United States for the Democrats as well. And so that is my responsibility as Speaker of the House."

But the best part is the last 25 seconds:

pelosi by krs601

Column of the day: The witch ain't dead

My favorite piece today is written by Salon.com's Rebecca Traister. She eloquently mirrors some of my thoughts the past couple of months. I'm not a Clinton fan. I hope she is not the nominee. I don't have a lot of trust for her. But I have been amazed at how poorly she has been treated by the talking heads. There has been a definite double-standard, and I suspect it is gender-based.

Traister opens with the following:

"I'm not a Hillary supporter, but ... " has been an oft-heard preamble in the five days since the New York senator's Iowa defeat, usually followed by a description of how aghast the speaker is at the treatment Clinton received from a media anxious to throw a hoe-down on her political coffin. To my surprise, it's a phrase I've heard myself uttering, before launching a tirade about the premature death certificate signed by pundits for a candidate I have never really wanted to win.

• The witch ain't dead, and Chris Matthews is a ding-dong, Salon.com, Jan 9, 2007
  

More Presidential Primaries Predictions

Okay, so it was several days ago, but I must admit that I was a bit off in my predictions of the Iowa caucus results. At least on the Democratic side. As we know, Clinton did NOT win by a double-digit margin but came in a close third place. So, I got it backwards. On the GOP side, I was right about Huckabee, but that was no real surprise.

Still, I'm going to barrel ahead and make predictions for tomorrow's primary in New Hampshire. I've only heard a little of the polls and some of the coverage. That won't stop my half-informed self from prognosticating though.

As the cable news channels tell us, the key in New Hampshire is the independent voters who can vote in either primary. (It's an open primary state.) I saw one poll last week that claimed that 60% of independents would vote in the Dem primary. If true, that should help Obama and harm the "moderate" Republicans.

Here it goes!

Democrats
Obama will win New Hampshire by at least 5 points. Edwards will be lucky to break 10%. Edwards will probably not drop out of the race yet. Richardson will have to withdraw after New Hampshire. It will be interesting to see who Richardson or Edwards will endorse, if anybody, after they withdraw. And no, I'm not going to even bother talking about Dennis Kucinich.

Republicans
Who the heck knows? It's all in flux. Either Romney or McCain will win. Whichever one wins here becomes the Republican front-runner in a three way race with Huckabee and Giuliani. McCain won the primary in 2000 with the help of lots of independent voters. Unfortunately, many of those independents will be voting Democrat, or could be pairing off to support Giuliani, Thompson, and Paul. Still, I'll predict McCain will win New Hampshire narrowly over Romney. Romney will stay in the race but his time is about done. Giuliani needs to come in 3rd or a narrow 4th to look competitive going into other states. My guess is that Giuliani, Paul, and Huckabee will be clustered around 10 percent each and Thompson will be less. One hopes that Thompson will end the charade and drop out after New Hampshire.

Another item on the horizon is whether high-profile independent Michael Bloomberg jumps in the race. If the Republican nominee appears to be Huckabee, I think that gives Bloomberg a great opportunity. If it is Giuliani or McCain, that is less possible. If he does enter, I think it could be as early as Monday, February 11th: one week after Super Tuesday. I remain doubtful that Bloomberg candidacy would amount to anything more than a spoiler candidate.

Presidential Predictions

I do enjoy making political predictions, but can't claim to have a great track record. I think I somewhat accurately called the results of the 2006 election, and I knew (like everyone else) that 2004 was going to be a close one. I also remember confidently declaring a few days before the 2002 election that Tim Pawlenty would come in third in the three-way gubernatorial race in Minnesota. Gov. Pawlenty is currently serving is second term.

I was all but avoiding the presidential politics up to just a couple of months ago. Not having poured over polling data or anything like that, I still have suspicions on how the race is going to go based on my appraisal of the candidates, conventional wisdom, and gut feeling.

How I think the Iowa Caucuses are going to go down on January 3rd:

DEMOCRATS
Clinton will win the Iowa caucus. Her name recognition, near-solid campaigning, and ability to deal with the electability question will get her to the top. Obama and Edwards will trail in the 5-15 point range, with Obama squeaking into second place. Even if I'm off by a bit here, it will all likely remain a three-way race after Iowa. My guess is that all other Democrat candidates besides these three (and Kucinich and other fringe candidates) will drop out before February 1st. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards will all stay in the race into February at least.

That being said, I can't see Edwards winning the nomination. I think he'll have an impact on the contest between Clinton and Obama. Already, he and Obama are splitting the anti-Clinton vote (whatever amount of the Democratic electorate that is). Endorsements usually don't mean much, but an endorsement from Edwards could make a difference at a key moment in the race.

Early on, I thought Richardson would do better than he has. He might be a good running mate pick. A Latino, western governor with foreign policy experience is a good combination for either Clinton or Obama. Though the Dems may be skittish if it looks like the Republicans are going to make this race about immigration since they have no other issues.

REPUBLICANS
The polls say Huckabee. And maybe they're right. He may win Iowa, but he's not going anywhere beyond that. As has been the conventional wisdom the last few months, the contest for the Republican nomination is between Giuliani and Romney. McCain has new strength in his campaign and may very well be a contender again, which certainly surprises me. Quick question: Who has bent over backward the most to appease leaders of the religious right: Romney, McCain or Giuliani?

So, I think Huckabee is the most likely winner in Iowa. Romney will be second by a range within 15 points of Huckabee and McCain will trail as a close third. Giuliani will come in fourth. If McCain comes close to Romney (say, within 5 points), that will boost him significantly in New Hampshire. All four of these candidates will stay in the race after Iowa, but Huckabee will be the first to bow out after a presumed poor showing in New Hampshire (and South Carolina if he gets that far).

I've long said that I couldn't see Rudy Giuliani getting the nomination. Not only does he have the wrong positions, the wrong constituencies, and personal skeletons in his closet, he is a thoroughly unlikable guy. That being said, I'm surprised he's made it this far, and he'll stay in the race into February unless he does horrible in New Hampshire by coming in a distant fourth place or worse.

Romney is still the most likely Republican nominee. I guess McCain isn't out of the picture though. Huckabee might be a reasonable running mate pick for a nominee needing to shore up cred with the religious right.

There you have it. I'll be out of touch next week right after the caucus, but will return to the subject at some point to see how right or wrong I am.

Why dogs are Democrats

(Does this mean cats are Republicans?)

As has been noted all over the place, there have been some stories dealing with the maltreatment of dogs linked to the Republican presidential candidate frontrunners.

Rudy Guiliani's wife, Judith, apparently demonstrated the application of medical staples on dogs that were then euthanized in sales pitches for the U.S. Surgical Corporation. This was about 30 years ago.

Mitt Romney is apparently proud of the piece of family lore, when he stuck his dog in a carrier on top of his car on 12-hour family trips to Canada. On one such occasion, the poor dog lost control of his bowels on the window. Mitt Romney calmly pulled over, borrowed a hose, sprayed down the car and dog, and continued on as before. Says the Boston Globe which published this story earlier in the year: "It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management." Emotion-free, yes. But I think dogs in particular would draw additional conclusions from this story. (Interestingly, Romney is becoming more "emotional" on the campaign trail; tearing up on occasion.)

And most recently, Newsweek has dug up the story previously reported in Arkansas press, that Mike Huckabee's then 17 year-old son, David, was fired from his position as a Boy Scout camp counselor for violating the Scout Law to be "kind." Allegedly, David and another counselor who was also fired, led a group of campers to torture and eventually kill by hanging and/or stabbing a stray dog that had come on to the camp. The grisly details are disputed, and ultimately, David was never charged with animal cruelty.

What reflects even worse on the candidate Mike Huckabee, is the allegation that members of the governor's staff pressured the director of the state police to decline the request to investigate the incident. The director was eventually asked to resign. He claims Gov. Huckabee told him one of the reasons for his requested resignation was: "I couldn't get you to help me with my son when I had that problem."

These are stories that have surfaced regarding the three current front-runners. One wonders what other dog cruelty shows up with the other Republican candidates and their families. It would be hard to see the anti-torture John McCain with any dog skeletons in his closet though.

Voters of course should come to their own conclusions on if and how any of these stories should impact their votes. I'm not voting in the Republican primary, so I don't have to worry about that yet. I would say, personally, that the story around Mitt Romney does have an impact on how I would view his character. I think the press needs to investigate the allegations of Huckabee personally interfering with criminal investigation to protect his son.

I don't think the story of what his current wife did 30 years ago should matter in Rudy Giuliani's case. What worries me more about Giuliani is his virtual enthusiasm when it comes to torturing humans. Giuliani is beyond the arguments of whether "harsh interrogation techniques" protect the nation. He thinks it's funny, suggesting that sleep deprivation torture is just like running for president. Ha ha. Giuliani, like the rest of the GOP candidates save McCain, has no problem with waterboarding, the act of suffocating a person underwater, but stopping short of killing them.

So, my absurd assertion from all this is that all dogs are Democrats, Greens, or independents. (Dogs are too dependent to be Libertarian.) Well, maybe Dogbert is a Republican.

Choice quotes

I listened to much of the Democrat Presidential debate yesterday. Two of my favorite remarks...

1. From Sen. Obama, when asked his priorities for his first year in office. The first was to order the Joint Chiefs to draw up a plan for, " in a responsible, careful way" withdrawing troops from Iraq. Number three was for a plan to extend health care coverage to all Americans. My favorite part:

"Number two, I'll call in my new attorney general to review every single executive order that's been issued by George Bush. And any of those that have undermined our Constitution or subverted our civil liberties are going to be reversed."

2. Sen. Clinton answered the same question and mirrored Obama's remarks. But my favorite part is emphasized below:

"I will review every executive order, rescind those that undermine the Constitution and betray the rule of law, and issue some, like, for example, not interfering with science and ending Bush's war on science."

Clinton also said she'd ask Congress to quickly resend her the bills Bush vetoed: stem cell research funding and children's health insurance program.