Briefly...
Not having a State of the Union (SOTU)delivered in speech form is not the end of the world. For those who do not know, presidents have a variety of ways they have met this constitutional requirement. However, the manner of delivery was not uniform historically.
President Washington delivered his addresses at the old Federal Hall building in NYC from 1790-1796. President Adams followed suit for his addresses which were done in the Senate portion of the building from 1797-1800. President Thomas Jefferson who was a poor public speaker and also shy opted to write his and deliver it to the papers in 1801. That established a precedent for all subsequent presidents from 1802-1912.
President Wilson reintroduced the oral speech delivery in 1913. However, from 1918-1920, he was too ill to give it orally so he submitted it in writing to the press. President Harding returned to oral delivery of the speech in 1921 and 1922 and President Coolidge followed suit in 1923. Starting in 1924 though, Coolidge eschewed the oral delivery and submitted a text to the papers instead: something President Hoover did for all four of his SOTU's from 1929-1932. Then President Roosevelt in 1933 cemented the oral delivery of his addresses in 1933 in the House chamber before a joint session of Congress and all his successors followed suit through to 2018 with the time of said speeches being fixed to late January-early February in 1934.
Showing posts with label Pres. Wilson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pres. Wilson. Show all posts
Friday, April 03, 2009
On Political "Front Runners" Historically, Sarah Palin's Prospects in 2012, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
To start with, talking heads in the msm are already (so soon after the last presidential election) opining about various political persons and their perceived viability or lack thereof in the 2012 contest. I however do not play the game of political prognosticating this far out for the simple fact that a year is an ice age in politics and four years might as well be like the Jurassic period metaphorically speaking. A lot can happen between now and then and I have traditionally been very accurate in my political prognosticating{1} to a good extent because I do not play this game that far out. However, there are certain trends politically that one can use to forecast with a greater degree of accuracy what will likely happen and I will at this time do that without currently making any definite predictions one way or the other.
To start with, politics as a vocation tends to be dynastic to a certain extent even though there have only been two presidential "dynasties" properly speaking thus far.{2} But to a certain extent, there are patterns one can refer to from the past to better help them forecast future probabilities. For one thing, though it is not by any means a universal, it is nonetheless true that presidents who are successful more often than not had previous experience as an executive in some capacity. This experience could come in a variety of ways from business owner to field commander in the military to mayor of a town or governor of a state but as a rule the best presidents have had this kind of experience and those who were not as good did not.
By contrast to those with executive experience, senators and representatives in Congress who later on become president are traditionally not as good though again this is not an absolute principle but instead more of a general rule. And having noted those things, we get to the issue of dynastic political elements which I will now touch on so the reader knows what I am talking about if they do not already.
Since the presidency of the businessman and general George Washington, those who were subsequently elected president have always had experience in government in some form or another. In Washington's cabinet was John Adams the vice president and Thomas Jefferson the secretary of state -both of whom had high profile government positions before serving in Washington's cabinet. Adams would succeed Washington as our second president and Jefferson was our second vice president and third president. Jefferson's secretary of state was James Madison who would succeed him as president and Madison's secretary of state was James Monroe who succeeded him. James Monroe's secretary of state was the heavily credentialed John Quincy Adams who had served in various government posts{3} prior to being Monroe's secretary of state.{4} Quincy Adams won the controversial 1824 election after not getting the popular vote against General Andrew Jackson who despite his popular image as the first "commoner" to be president{5} as well as the first of the Democratic party presidents{6} had previous experience as a senator from Tennessee, house member from Tennessee, judge on the Tennessee supreme court, general of the military, and military governor of Florida.
We could similarly trace this pattern throughout all of American political history but pointing to the patterns that we have seen since 1952 suffices to make this point. Let us begin the more modern era therefore starting with Richard M. Nixon who was the vice president for two terms under former army general and president Dwight D. Eisenhower. Nixon was the nominee for president in 1960 and we need not go over how the Democratic party machine in Chicago and other places cheated him out of victory in that election.{7} He later on was defeated in the California gubernatorial election of 1962. After losing that election (and claiming he was finished), Nixon came back in 1968 to capture the nomination and win the presidency and won re-election in 1972. Senator John F. Kennedy who narrowly failed to secure the vice presidential position at the 1956 Democratic party convention of course was the party nominee and "victor" in 1960.{8} His vice president Lyndon B. Johnson (Senate majority leader, former House member, and a candidate in the 1960 election) became president in 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated and won in his own right the following year.
Having already covered the Nixon election wins, it bears pointing out that when his successor Gerald Ford{9} ran unsuccessfully for president in 1976, he was very nearly upset by former California governor Ronald Reagan -winning the nomination by a mere hundred odd delegates out of a couple of thousand cast. Reagan of course went on to win the next two presidential elections by monumental victory margins. One of his adversaries in the 1980 election was George H. W. Bush who was then added as his vice presidential candidate when Reagan locked up the 1980 the nomination for president. (He was to succeed Reagan by winning in his own right in 1988.) One of the Democratic party failed presidential candidates of 1988 was Albert Gore Jr. who was added as Bill Clinton's vice presidential candidate in 1992. After eight years of serving as vice president, Gore was nominated as his party's candidate and ultimately lost the 2000 election by failing to win the electoral college. Gore was opposed by former President Bush's son George W. Bush who won the general election after fending off a tough challenge from Sen. John McCain in the Republican primaries. McCain as we all know was the Republican party nominee in the 2008 election.
I have traced this historical sketch out to provide a glimpse of sorts into how history has gone to better enable readers to better gauge how future election history will go. For one thing, those touting a possible future candidacy for Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal are already behind the curve in that my good friend Kevin M. Tierney in one of the frequent political conversations we have had was calling Jindal a possible "dark horse candidate" back in 2008 and already predicted he would run in 2012 and be the favourite for the nomination that year. I am not sure if he has changed his prediction or not in the aftermath of the political ascent of Alaska governor Sarah Palin but I have him on record picking Jindal as far back as at least eight months ago if not more.{10} In the meantime, I know of some people who are currently picking Palin as the front runner in 2012.
Speaking of Governor Sarah Palin, insofar as she goes as a front runner in the 2012 presidential election for the Republicans, a bit of history of former vice presidential candidates who later ran as presidential candidates seems in order. (I should note that when I say "ran" I mean was actually successfully nominated to run as representative of their respective political parties.) The first of the major parties to cover is the Federalist party and the only vice presidential candidate they had who later ran for president was President Washington's vice president John Adams but this example as well as the one from the elections of 1796 and 1800 cannot be used.{11} The opposition Democratic-Republican party{12} never had a vice presidential candidate who became president so we can rule them out as well. In the divisions of 1824 from which today's Democratic party takes its true origin to the present day, there have been several vice presidential candidates who have become president but in all but one case they succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president.{13} The exception to the rule was the only vice presidential candidate who ever ran successfully as president later on and that was President Franklin D. Roosevelt.{14} There have been a number of former vice presidents from the Democratic party side who subsequently secured their parties nomination for president{15} but only FDR successfully won in his bid after securing the vice presidential nomination in a losing party effort.
On the side of the Whigs -a party that became the main opposition to the Democratic party in 1833 and eventually was replaced by the Republicans in 1854, two of their vice presidential candidates on winning presidential tickets became president but in both cases (Tyler in 1841 and Fillmore in 1850) it was because the president they ran under died in office.{16} On the Republican party side of things, seven successfully nominated vice presidential candidates ran for president later on. Of the seven, three succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president before they made their runs{17} and two of them won election as president in their own right.{18} Of the others{19}, none of them successfully was elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency earlier.
The history of political dynastic voting patterns points to Governor Sarah Palin being the logical front runner in 2012. However, only once in US history has a candidate from any major party successfully been elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency on someone else's ticket. Does this mean that Governor Palin is certain to fail in this endeavour? Not necessarily. Senator Bob Dole after being nominated as President Ford's running mate failed to be elected vice president in 1976 and later on failed to win the presidency in 1996. There is no record of this sort to go on from the Democratic side of things other than the example of FDR. But before people read too heavily into these things as spelling certain death for Governor Palin's chances, they need to consider the circumstances behind the failed vp and successful bid of FDR and the failed bids both times of Senator Dole.
To start with, FDR did not have any executive experience when he ran in 1920 as James Cox's vice president and they ran on the tail end of President Woodrow Wilson from their own party who for a variety of reasons{20} was unpopular. No Democratic candidate was going to win that year basically under the climate of the times. Subsequent to that point, Roosevelt was successfully elected governor of New York in 1928 and thus by 1932 he had executive experience to make his presidential bid more credible than it otherwise would have been. He also in his presidential run had the benefit of opposing the boneheaded governance of the incumbent President Herbert Hoover who was no laissez-faire president by any means.{21} Senator Bob Dole ran as vice president on the ticket of a non-elected president who had previously been appointed as vice president himself two years after the previous vice president of his party (and later the president he replaced) resigned in disgrace.
The Ford/Dole ticket faced a particularly stiff challenge from former California governor Ronald Reagan which while it galvanized the party contributed in the short term to narrow presidential defeat.{22} Twenty years later, Senator Bob Dole ran for president and in a situation where his party had moved to prevent the possibility of potential upsets akin to what Reagan nearly pulled off in 1976, the deck was stacked in the primaries to favour party insiders and make a repeat of the 1976 nomination scenario next to impossible.{23} As a result, the candidate who was the strongest party nominee by force of party connections (Dole) was probably not their best candidate for winning the general election against an incumbent president like William J. Clinton who had recently achieved some significant real and perceived victories against the opposition Republican congress.{24} Plus, Senator Dole though he ran for president in 1988 and also 1996 had not bothered in the time since he was Ford's vp candidate to acquire any executive experience.
So of the two examples we have of successfully nominated vice presidential candidates, we have one that succeeded (FDR) and one that failed (Dole). We can also point to circumstances of the times of the various elections that contributed in no small way to the success of FDR and the failure of Dole in their presidential aspirations. What this tells us ultimately is the general rule I spelled out at the beginning of this posting applied here and the successful example (FDR) had executive experience that the unsuccessful example (Dole) did not.
So readers need to take that into account ultimately when they attempt to write off the chances of Governor Sarah Palin to successfully get her party's nomination in 2012 and potentially win the general election. Like FDR and unlike Dole, she has executive experience having been both a mayor as well as a state governor. As for predicting a front runner for 2012, all I will say is if Palin and Jindal do not win their re-elections in 2010, they will not be the party nominee in 2012 and while I believe they will both be re-elected (particularly Jindal), I will not dare to make a political prediction of the overall viability for presidential candidacy of either of them until they do.
As far as Senator Hillary Clinton goes, her chances of running again depend on how she sees herself in 2012. If President Obama has a successful or average presidency, he will not have any opposition in his party to re-election. If however he is a trainwreck, then he may well receive the sort of stiff party challenge that Ted Kennedy gave President Carter in 1980. Senator Clinton came closer to a come-from-behind victory for the nomination than any presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1976. If Obama really messes things up, she may well run again in 2012 for far from being "too old" she would know that she would be no older then (65) than Reagan was in 1976 when he challenged Ford (he was 65) and four years younger than Reagan was when he won the presidency in 1980 at 69 years of age.
If President Obama is a disaster as president, can anyone think of other Democratic party candidates besides former Senator and now Secretary of State Clinton to give him a political fight? Only two come to my mind offhand that could be similarly viable. One is former Indiana governor and current Indiana senator Evan Bayh and the other is Virginia governor Tim Kaine. Bayh is from a politically dynastic family and Kaine as of January 21, 2009 holds not only his position as Virginia governor (he is up for re-election in 2010) but also is chairman of the Democratic National Committee. It would seem far more probable to me that Kaine would be more the king (or queen) maker than the king himself in light of his new position as DNC chair so that would leave Bayh as the only candidate I can think of who could rival Secretary of State Clinton as a party challenger to President Obama if his presidency is floundering when 2012 approaches.
Furthermore, Secretary of State Clinton's current cabinet position as a political precursor to the presidency was touched on earlier in this note. While it is true that her cabinet position has not been as influential in the past hundred and fifty years as it was previously, it still bears noting that four of the first seven and six of the first fifteen presidents were secretaries of state for a previous president{25} before becoming president in their own right.
Notes:
{1} Though in 2008 I was less accurate than the norm because a lot of things went against type in that election year -the msm shedding the last vestiges of their pretenses of "objectivity" to whore for Barack Obama in a way that was both shocking as well as frightening.
{2} The first of these was John Adams and John Quincy Adams while the second was George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush.
{3} Including Ambassador to the Netherlands under President Washington, Ambassador to Prussia under his father President Adams, Member of the Massachussets state Senate from 1802-1803, Senator of Massachussets from 1803-1809, Ambassador to Russia under President Madison until 1814, negotiator at Ghent for an end to the War of 1812 (and subsequently Ambassador to England) under President Madison. He also served in the Massachussets House of Representatives after losing his bid for re-election in 1828 until his death twenty years later: the only former president to serve in "the people's chamber" after serving as president.
{4} See footnote three. Quincy Adams was also the mind behind the famous Monroe Doctrine as promulgated in 1823 by President James Monroe and one the more fervent early slavery abolitionists. To say that he got by far more on his own natural talents than riding his famous father's coattails than President George W. Bush did is well established and beyond any debate by rational people.
{5} Which to a certain extent is accurate in that he was the first president who was not from the aristocratic class of American society.
{6} The Democratic party does not date from the time of Thomas Jefferson however much modern Democrats may wish it did.
{7} Nixon wisely chose not to go the "Al Gore route" and accepted the election results.
{8} See footnote seven. I would like to add here that I do not think Kennedy personally had a hand in any of this though that his influential father did is pretty close to being beyond debate really.
{9} Who became president after he was appointed to succeed Spiro Agnew in 1973 as vice president and then sworn in when President Nixon resigned the presidency in August of 1974.
{10} I would have to check my archives to know for sure but I have to give Kevin his due for being ahead of the popular curve on Jindal.
{11} The reason is the current law of parties running specifically as designated presidential and vice president was not put into effect by constitutional amendment until after the election of 1800 when Jefferson and Burr tied in electoral votes despite Burr being intended initially to be the vice presidential not presidential candidate. Starting with the election of 1804, the practice as we know it today has been in force.
{12} Originally called the "Republican" party by its advocates who wanted to claim that they favoured republicanism and the opposing federalists were closet monarchists. The Federalists countered by calling them "Democrats" to associate them with the French Jacoban democrats who were the architects of the French Revolution and its anarchial aftermath. Today, they are referred to as the "Democratic-Republican" party to separate them from the later Democratic party formed by the Jacksonians and the later Republican party which originated from 1854 as a coalition of old Federalists and a good section of the then-dying Whig political party.
{13} These include Harry Truman in 1944 and Lyndon Johnson in 1963 -both of whom subsequently won elections to retain their hold on the presidency in the following presidential elections.
{14} Who was the vice presidential candidate on the losing ticket of 1920 to Ohio governor James Cox.
{15} These include John C. Breckenridge who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1856 who ran in a split party election in 1860 (representing the south) and Hubert H. Humphrey who was nominated vice president on the winning 1964 ticket who ran as the party's nominee in 1968. There was also Walter F. Mondale who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1976 and was the incumbent vice president on the losing 1980 ticket, and Al Gore who failed to be nominated in his own right in 1988 and was President Clinton's vice president for eight years. (And as we know, he failed to win in 2000.)
{16} Neither Tyler nor Fillmore despite running as incumbents were able to win the presidency in their own right later on.
{17} Chester A. Arthur (succeeded the assassinated President James Garfield in 1881), Theodore Roosevelt (succeeded the assassinated President William McKinley in 1901), and Calvin Coolidge (succeeded President Warren Harding who died in office in 1923).
{18} Roosevelt in 1904 and Coolidge in 1924.
{19} See footnote fifteen.
{20} Too numerous to go into here.
{21} Contrary to the revisionist historical nonsense paraded about today as "history" supposedly "teaches."
{22} President Ford made some pretty bad gaffes in debate against Georgia governor Jimmy Carter which also did not help him.
{23} This ultimately is why I told the Republicans to go to hell after the 1996 general election and have been an unaffiliated Independent voter ever since.
{24} See footnote twenty.
{25} Jefferson for Washington, Madison for Jefferson, Monroe for Madison, Quincy Adams for Monroe, Van Buren under Jackson, and Buchanan under Polk.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
To start with, talking heads in the msm are already (so soon after the last presidential election) opining about various political persons and their perceived viability or lack thereof in the 2012 contest. I however do not play the game of political prognosticating this far out for the simple fact that a year is an ice age in politics and four years might as well be like the Jurassic period metaphorically speaking. A lot can happen between now and then and I have traditionally been very accurate in my political prognosticating{1} to a good extent because I do not play this game that far out. However, there are certain trends politically that one can use to forecast with a greater degree of accuracy what will likely happen and I will at this time do that without currently making any definite predictions one way or the other.
To start with, politics as a vocation tends to be dynastic to a certain extent even though there have only been two presidential "dynasties" properly speaking thus far.{2} But to a certain extent, there are patterns one can refer to from the past to better help them forecast future probabilities. For one thing, though it is not by any means a universal, it is nonetheless true that presidents who are successful more often than not had previous experience as an executive in some capacity. This experience could come in a variety of ways from business owner to field commander in the military to mayor of a town or governor of a state but as a rule the best presidents have had this kind of experience and those who were not as good did not.
By contrast to those with executive experience, senators and representatives in Congress who later on become president are traditionally not as good though again this is not an absolute principle but instead more of a general rule. And having noted those things, we get to the issue of dynastic political elements which I will now touch on so the reader knows what I am talking about if they do not already.
Since the presidency of the businessman and general George Washington, those who were subsequently elected president have always had experience in government in some form or another. In Washington's cabinet was John Adams the vice president and Thomas Jefferson the secretary of state -both of whom had high profile government positions before serving in Washington's cabinet. Adams would succeed Washington as our second president and Jefferson was our second vice president and third president. Jefferson's secretary of state was James Madison who would succeed him as president and Madison's secretary of state was James Monroe who succeeded him. James Monroe's secretary of state was the heavily credentialed John Quincy Adams who had served in various government posts{3} prior to being Monroe's secretary of state.{4} Quincy Adams won the controversial 1824 election after not getting the popular vote against General Andrew Jackson who despite his popular image as the first "commoner" to be president{5} as well as the first of the Democratic party presidents{6} had previous experience as a senator from Tennessee, house member from Tennessee, judge on the Tennessee supreme court, general of the military, and military governor of Florida.
We could similarly trace this pattern throughout all of American political history but pointing to the patterns that we have seen since 1952 suffices to make this point. Let us begin the more modern era therefore starting with Richard M. Nixon who was the vice president for two terms under former army general and president Dwight D. Eisenhower. Nixon was the nominee for president in 1960 and we need not go over how the Democratic party machine in Chicago and other places cheated him out of victory in that election.{7} He later on was defeated in the California gubernatorial election of 1962. After losing that election (and claiming he was finished), Nixon came back in 1968 to capture the nomination and win the presidency and won re-election in 1972. Senator John F. Kennedy who narrowly failed to secure the vice presidential position at the 1956 Democratic party convention of course was the party nominee and "victor" in 1960.{8} His vice president Lyndon B. Johnson (Senate majority leader, former House member, and a candidate in the 1960 election) became president in 1963 when Kennedy was assassinated and won in his own right the following year.
Having already covered the Nixon election wins, it bears pointing out that when his successor Gerald Ford{9} ran unsuccessfully for president in 1976, he was very nearly upset by former California governor Ronald Reagan -winning the nomination by a mere hundred odd delegates out of a couple of thousand cast. Reagan of course went on to win the next two presidential elections by monumental victory margins. One of his adversaries in the 1980 election was George H. W. Bush who was then added as his vice presidential candidate when Reagan locked up the 1980 the nomination for president. (He was to succeed Reagan by winning in his own right in 1988.) One of the Democratic party failed presidential candidates of 1988 was Albert Gore Jr. who was added as Bill Clinton's vice presidential candidate in 1992. After eight years of serving as vice president, Gore was nominated as his party's candidate and ultimately lost the 2000 election by failing to win the electoral college. Gore was opposed by former President Bush's son George W. Bush who won the general election after fending off a tough challenge from Sen. John McCain in the Republican primaries. McCain as we all know was the Republican party nominee in the 2008 election.
I have traced this historical sketch out to provide a glimpse of sorts into how history has gone to better enable readers to better gauge how future election history will go. For one thing, those touting a possible future candidacy for Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal are already behind the curve in that my good friend Kevin M. Tierney in one of the frequent political conversations we have had was calling Jindal a possible "dark horse candidate" back in 2008 and already predicted he would run in 2012 and be the favourite for the nomination that year. I am not sure if he has changed his prediction or not in the aftermath of the political ascent of Alaska governor Sarah Palin but I have him on record picking Jindal as far back as at least eight months ago if not more.{10} In the meantime, I know of some people who are currently picking Palin as the front runner in 2012.
Speaking of Governor Sarah Palin, insofar as she goes as a front runner in the 2012 presidential election for the Republicans, a bit of history of former vice presidential candidates who later ran as presidential candidates seems in order. (I should note that when I say "ran" I mean was actually successfully nominated to run as representative of their respective political parties.) The first of the major parties to cover is the Federalist party and the only vice presidential candidate they had who later ran for president was President Washington's vice president John Adams but this example as well as the one from the elections of 1796 and 1800 cannot be used.{11} The opposition Democratic-Republican party{12} never had a vice presidential candidate who became president so we can rule them out as well. In the divisions of 1824 from which today's Democratic party takes its true origin to the present day, there have been several vice presidential candidates who have become president but in all but one case they succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president.{13} The exception to the rule was the only vice presidential candidate who ever ran successfully as president later on and that was President Franklin D. Roosevelt.{14} There have been a number of former vice presidents from the Democratic party side who subsequently secured their parties nomination for president{15} but only FDR successfully won in his bid after securing the vice presidential nomination in a losing party effort.
On the side of the Whigs -a party that became the main opposition to the Democratic party in 1833 and eventually was replaced by the Republicans in 1854, two of their vice presidential candidates on winning presidential tickets became president but in both cases (Tyler in 1841 and Fillmore in 1850) it was because the president they ran under died in office.{16} On the Republican party side of things, seven successfully nominated vice presidential candidates ran for president later on. Of the seven, three succeeded to the presidency upon the death of the president before they made their runs{17} and two of them won election as president in their own right.{18} Of the others{19}, none of them successfully was elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency earlier.
The history of political dynastic voting patterns points to Governor Sarah Palin being the logical front runner in 2012. However, only once in US history has a candidate from any major party successfully been elected president in their own right after failing to win the vice presidency on someone else's ticket. Does this mean that Governor Palin is certain to fail in this endeavour? Not necessarily. Senator Bob Dole after being nominated as President Ford's running mate failed to be elected vice president in 1976 and later on failed to win the presidency in 1996. There is no record of this sort to go on from the Democratic side of things other than the example of FDR. But before people read too heavily into these things as spelling certain death for Governor Palin's chances, they need to consider the circumstances behind the failed vp and successful bid of FDR and the failed bids both times of Senator Dole.
To start with, FDR did not have any executive experience when he ran in 1920 as James Cox's vice president and they ran on the tail end of President Woodrow Wilson from their own party who for a variety of reasons{20} was unpopular. No Democratic candidate was going to win that year basically under the climate of the times. Subsequent to that point, Roosevelt was successfully elected governor of New York in 1928 and thus by 1932 he had executive experience to make his presidential bid more credible than it otherwise would have been. He also in his presidential run had the benefit of opposing the boneheaded governance of the incumbent President Herbert Hoover who was no laissez-faire president by any means.{21} Senator Bob Dole ran as vice president on the ticket of a non-elected president who had previously been appointed as vice president himself two years after the previous vice president of his party (and later the president he replaced) resigned in disgrace.
The Ford/Dole ticket faced a particularly stiff challenge from former California governor Ronald Reagan which while it galvanized the party contributed in the short term to narrow presidential defeat.{22} Twenty years later, Senator Bob Dole ran for president and in a situation where his party had moved to prevent the possibility of potential upsets akin to what Reagan nearly pulled off in 1976, the deck was stacked in the primaries to favour party insiders and make a repeat of the 1976 nomination scenario next to impossible.{23} As a result, the candidate who was the strongest party nominee by force of party connections (Dole) was probably not their best candidate for winning the general election against an incumbent president like William J. Clinton who had recently achieved some significant real and perceived victories against the opposition Republican congress.{24} Plus, Senator Dole though he ran for president in 1988 and also 1996 had not bothered in the time since he was Ford's vp candidate to acquire any executive experience.
So of the two examples we have of successfully nominated vice presidential candidates, we have one that succeeded (FDR) and one that failed (Dole). We can also point to circumstances of the times of the various elections that contributed in no small way to the success of FDR and the failure of Dole in their presidential aspirations. What this tells us ultimately is the general rule I spelled out at the beginning of this posting applied here and the successful example (FDR) had executive experience that the unsuccessful example (Dole) did not.
So readers need to take that into account ultimately when they attempt to write off the chances of Governor Sarah Palin to successfully get her party's nomination in 2012 and potentially win the general election. Like FDR and unlike Dole, she has executive experience having been both a mayor as well as a state governor. As for predicting a front runner for 2012, all I will say is if Palin and Jindal do not win their re-elections in 2010, they will not be the party nominee in 2012 and while I believe they will both be re-elected (particularly Jindal), I will not dare to make a political prediction of the overall viability for presidential candidacy of either of them until they do.
As far as Senator Hillary Clinton goes, her chances of running again depend on how she sees herself in 2012. If President Obama has a successful or average presidency, he will not have any opposition in his party to re-election. If however he is a trainwreck, then he may well receive the sort of stiff party challenge that Ted Kennedy gave President Carter in 1980. Senator Clinton came closer to a come-from-behind victory for the nomination than any presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1976. If Obama really messes things up, she may well run again in 2012 for far from being "too old" she would know that she would be no older then (65) than Reagan was in 1976 when he challenged Ford (he was 65) and four years younger than Reagan was when he won the presidency in 1980 at 69 years of age.
If President Obama is a disaster as president, can anyone think of other Democratic party candidates besides former Senator and now Secretary of State Clinton to give him a political fight? Only two come to my mind offhand that could be similarly viable. One is former Indiana governor and current Indiana senator Evan Bayh and the other is Virginia governor Tim Kaine. Bayh is from a politically dynastic family and Kaine as of January 21, 2009 holds not only his position as Virginia governor (he is up for re-election in 2010) but also is chairman of the Democratic National Committee. It would seem far more probable to me that Kaine would be more the king (or queen) maker than the king himself in light of his new position as DNC chair so that would leave Bayh as the only candidate I can think of who could rival Secretary of State Clinton as a party challenger to President Obama if his presidency is floundering when 2012 approaches.
Furthermore, Secretary of State Clinton's current cabinet position as a political precursor to the presidency was touched on earlier in this note. While it is true that her cabinet position has not been as influential in the past hundred and fifty years as it was previously, it still bears noting that four of the first seven and six of the first fifteen presidents were secretaries of state for a previous president{25} before becoming president in their own right.
Notes:
{1} Though in 2008 I was less accurate than the norm because a lot of things went against type in that election year -the msm shedding the last vestiges of their pretenses of "objectivity" to whore for Barack Obama in a way that was both shocking as well as frightening.
{2} The first of these was John Adams and John Quincy Adams while the second was George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush.
{3} Including Ambassador to the Netherlands under President Washington, Ambassador to Prussia under his father President Adams, Member of the Massachussets state Senate from 1802-1803, Senator of Massachussets from 1803-1809, Ambassador to Russia under President Madison until 1814, negotiator at Ghent for an end to the War of 1812 (and subsequently Ambassador to England) under President Madison. He also served in the Massachussets House of Representatives after losing his bid for re-election in 1828 until his death twenty years later: the only former president to serve in "the people's chamber" after serving as president.
{4} See footnote three. Quincy Adams was also the mind behind the famous Monroe Doctrine as promulgated in 1823 by President James Monroe and one the more fervent early slavery abolitionists. To say that he got by far more on his own natural talents than riding his famous father's coattails than President George W. Bush did is well established and beyond any debate by rational people.
{5} Which to a certain extent is accurate in that he was the first president who was not from the aristocratic class of American society.
{6} The Democratic party does not date from the time of Thomas Jefferson however much modern Democrats may wish it did.
{7} Nixon wisely chose not to go the "Al Gore route" and accepted the election results.
{8} See footnote seven. I would like to add here that I do not think Kennedy personally had a hand in any of this though that his influential father did is pretty close to being beyond debate really.
{9} Who became president after he was appointed to succeed Spiro Agnew in 1973 as vice president and then sworn in when President Nixon resigned the presidency in August of 1974.
{10} I would have to check my archives to know for sure but I have to give Kevin his due for being ahead of the popular curve on Jindal.
{11} The reason is the current law of parties running specifically as designated presidential and vice president was not put into effect by constitutional amendment until after the election of 1800 when Jefferson and Burr tied in electoral votes despite Burr being intended initially to be the vice presidential not presidential candidate. Starting with the election of 1804, the practice as we know it today has been in force.
{12} Originally called the "Republican" party by its advocates who wanted to claim that they favoured republicanism and the opposing federalists were closet monarchists. The Federalists countered by calling them "Democrats" to associate them with the French Jacoban democrats who were the architects of the French Revolution and its anarchial aftermath. Today, they are referred to as the "Democratic-Republican" party to separate them from the later Democratic party formed by the Jacksonians and the later Republican party which originated from 1854 as a coalition of old Federalists and a good section of the then-dying Whig political party.
{13} These include Harry Truman in 1944 and Lyndon Johnson in 1963 -both of whom subsequently won elections to retain their hold on the presidency in the following presidential elections.
{14} Who was the vice presidential candidate on the losing ticket of 1920 to Ohio governor James Cox.
{15} These include John C. Breckenridge who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1856 who ran in a split party election in 1860 (representing the south) and Hubert H. Humphrey who was nominated vice president on the winning 1964 ticket who ran as the party's nominee in 1968. There was also Walter F. Mondale who was nominated vice president on the winning ticket in 1976 and was the incumbent vice president on the losing 1980 ticket, and Al Gore who failed to be nominated in his own right in 1988 and was President Clinton's vice president for eight years. (And as we know, he failed to win in 2000.)
{16} Neither Tyler nor Fillmore despite running as incumbents were able to win the presidency in their own right later on.
{17} Chester A. Arthur (succeeded the assassinated President James Garfield in 1881), Theodore Roosevelt (succeeded the assassinated President William McKinley in 1901), and Calvin Coolidge (succeeded President Warren Harding who died in office in 1923).
{18} Roosevelt in 1904 and Coolidge in 1924.
{19} See footnote fifteen.
{20} Too numerous to go into here.
{21} Contrary to the revisionist historical nonsense paraded about today as "history" supposedly "teaches."
{22} President Ford made some pretty bad gaffes in debate against Georgia governor Jimmy Carter which also did not help him.
{23} This ultimately is why I told the Republicans to go to hell after the 1996 general election and have been an unaffiliated Independent voter ever since.
{24} See footnote twenty.
{25} Jefferson for Washington, Madison for Jefferson, Monroe for Madison, Quincy Adams for Monroe, Van Buren under Jackson, and Buchanan under Polk.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
More on Senator John McCain, the Boundaries of Conservative Republican Thought Historically Speaking, and Certain Troubling Contemporary Ahistorical So-Called "Conservative" Trends Thereof:
(Part V of a Dialogue)
This is a continuation from the fourth part of this series which can be accessed here. To start from the beginning (if you have not read the previous parts) please go here.
And though I have noted it in every part of the series so far, a reminder of the colour schemata in this series (to cut down on confusion as to the sequence of arguments) still seems pertinent; ergo I reiterate for a final time what I noted in the first part of this series:
The orange font is from the emailer's original email while light blue font is my responses to the emailer's original note. The dark green font is from the emailer's follow-up to my first response while the regular blog font colour is my response to the emailer's follow-up note. Any sources I quote in this note will be in dark blue font and possibly smaller type as a result of the format this original text was taken from (I do not have time to change it). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
Without further ado...
Furthermore, the Reagan years were an aberration of sorts...in the past hundred ten odd years, there were only three non-establishment Republican candidates: Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. (The Democrats had only one -Harry Truman- in that same span of time if you exclude the thrice defeated William Jennings Bryan.) TR only became president because the establishment plan to shut him up by making him vice president backfired when McKinley was assassinated. He was able to get elected on his own in 1804 and if he had not died when he did, probably would have won in 1920...a story for another time altogether perhaps.
Goldwater broke the back of the establishment in 1964 along with the Democratic stronghold of the south though he lost in a landslide thanks to the establishment doing their part of not supporting him as they should have. But he made an important breakthrough because other than his home state of Arizona, all the states he won electorally were in the deep south: a break of the "solid south" which had been dominated by Democrat electoral power since 1856. This paved the way for Nixon to come through in 1968 and then even more spectacularly in 1972 but Nixon was an establishment candidate. He was replaced by Ford in 1974 and in 1976, the entire establishment supported Ford against Reagan -even Goldwater who basically brokered Nixon's resignation supported Ford over the candidate who was ideologically much closer to himself.
Well, Goldwater was actually closer to Rudy Guiliani that he was to Reagan. Once issues like abortion and homosexuality became issues Goldwater was both pro-gay and pro-abortion.
Sigh...more education is needed on this obviously.
I think it is more than safe to say that Reagan turned out to be a true conservative while Goldwater didn't.
Senator Goldwater did take the view that someone who was gay should not be disallowed in the military if they are competent soldiers. If you are going to oppose his view on that then at least familiarize yourself with it first. It is not a matter of being "pro gay" but instead pro military and recognizing that those who can shoot straight can make valuable contributions to the nation's defense even if they are not personally straight. There is also the recognition that there have been homosexuals in the military in every military since the days of the Roman empire and policies that involve pretending otherwise are both naive as well as stupid.
I happen to have not viewed the gays in the military issue as much of a big deal -ironically I differed from Goldwater on means though not the end if you will. I had no problem with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy when Clinton announced it (unlike Goldwater) and I do not now: it has nothing to do with being "pro gay" any more than defending someone's right to believe something makes me "pro" their view. And I am not going to anathematize Goldwater for disagreeing with me on this issue viz. the means.
As far as the abortion issue goes, to understand Goldwater's position it helps to consider some of his comments from The Congressional Record:
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." [Senator Barry M. Goldwater: From The Congressional Record (circa September 16, 1981)]
I can not only understand Senator Goldwater's anger on these matters but to some extent I have long shared it. On religious matters it embodies opposing those who would try to make others follow every jot and tittle of their personal opinion as if it was required dogma lest they be viewed as "heterodox" "anathematized", or whatever.{1} On political matters it encapsulates those who try to claim some unique franchise on the term "conservatism" by focusing on one or two issues and disregarding the rest; essentially, ignoring the underlying philosophy of a conservative outlook while uncritically parroting one or two talking points positions which are based on certain foundational presuppositions which they do not bother to question. To quote Goldwater, "just who do they think they are"???
Of course there are some areas where Reagan fared a bit better on the issue of conservatism. Neither man was supportive personally of abortion but they went about it differently. In Goldwater's case, his claim that women had a "right to abortion" late in his life was a recognition that RvW was "settled law" (cf. John Roberts) whether we like it or not. But just because something is "settled law" does not mean it cannot at some point be changed.
Goldwater according to his autobiography was personally was opposed to abortion -viewing it as a states right issue not a federal one. And while Reagan was better on balance than Goldwater on abortion perhaps;{2} nonetheless, on the plethora of what embodies conservative principles, Reagan did not fare as well overall as Goldwater.
For Goldwater was not only opposed to The Great Society as Reagan was but also to The New Deal which Reagan was in many respects not. (My view on this is somewhere between that of Reagan and Goldwater.) But the root difference between Conservatives and Liberals was one that Goldwater noted decades ago in the following fashion:
The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand,—in the name of a concern for "human beings"—regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society's political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel "progress." In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.
Senator Goldwater did not believe in trying to harness any governmental entity to try and "compel progress" regardless of what that proposed "progress" happened to be. He was in other words completely consistent on this matter. The same cannot be said of The Gipper who did not mind trying to use government at times to "compel progress" depending on the issue at hand.
The problem with judicial activism on one hand is it makes one lack credibility when they criticize the other side for doing the same thing: yet this is precisely what the religious right sorts want to try and do. The hallmark of conservatism is advocating the maximum of human liberty consonant with societal order: subsidiarity if you will. And part of subsidiarity is not involving the federal government in the attempt to compel societal virtue.
This is why Goldwater did not favour activist judges of any stripe and Reagan in this area was a bit inconsistent. They were both conservatives, believing in the same core principles but differing at times on how they viewed those principled to be best implemented. Neither was 100% perfect but Goldwater overall was better than Reagan was.
At bottom, your comments about Goldwater reveal to me that you do not really understand the heart of conservative philosophy despite (usually) having some good conservative instincts XXXXXXX. But that is a subject for another time perhaps...I have said all I intend to for now on it.
And if not for Carter being such a horrible president, Reagan would probably not have been elected in 1980. There was that and also because Carter and his advisers made the same mistake in 1980 that Governor Pat Brown and his advisers did in California in 1966: they presumed Reagan was easier to beat than the other major candidates so they sabotaged the front runner to get Reagan as an opponent. So Reagan got the nomination, resisted the attempts to paint him in demonic colours that the Democrats tried to do, and won in 1980 by significantly dominating the south -winning all but Georgia and West Virginia. He added those states in 1984 when he swept the south: the second time a Republican had ever done that. (Nixon was the first in the 1972 election to do it.) Bush Sr. ran as carrying Reagan's mantle the same way that Taft ran as carrying TR's mantle in 1912. And just as Taft was a huge disappointment, so too was Bush Sr. and both of them lost re-election in three party races. The Republicans in 1916 as in 1996 went with an establishment candidate and need I go on??? The bottom line is, what we saw this year is historically more probable than not.
1916, the year of the Bull Moose "It's all about Teddy" debacle.
You mean 1912. Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election in 1916 on the "he kept us out of war" platform winning narrowly.
TR's act of self-agranddizement was both embarrassing and destructive.
In a sense it was sure. But your claim that it was an act of "self-aggrandizement" shows me you do not know much about what actually happened. TR followed the Ben Franklin model and did not campaign for the presidency -noting that he would not seek the nomination but if there was a grass roots movement that supported him, he would not refuse out of a proper sense of duty on the matter. As it happens, there was such a movement from many who were pissed off at the Republican party bosses and the most visible person they could find to champion their cause was TR. I could note more on this but that you do not even realize that TR responded to a movement to draft him and did not lead such a charge himself tells me just how shallow your knowledge on this matter really is.
But you are right about this event having a destructive nature to it as it basically drove the Roosevelt element out of the Republican party and let the conservative oligarchy element to deservedly die on the vine in the general election. But it also opened a new vista in the form of the election primary contributing to the nomination of a candidate.
That election also was one of the first where primaries became a factor in nomination and it was the Roosevelt faction that favoured the primary system as a way of breaking the establishment hold on the party machinery. The problem is, the primaries were not viewed as binding back then but instead as voluntary; ergo Wisconsin Senator Robert LaFollette won two primaries out of the first four, President Taft won two out of the first four, and TR won nine of the last ten including Taft's home state of Ohio which he won by a large margin. The momentum had clearly shifted and Taft was losing where the party bosses were unable to keep a tight control on things. And at the convention, the conservative party bosses rigged the machinery to get a nomination victory for Taft. They did this not only in seating Taft delegates in Alabama and Arizona but also from California -a state that Roosevelt had won. As a result of the California shafting, TR and his delegates saw the screw job in the making and walked out of the convention hall and formed their own party.
Of course you think that TR was the "embarrassment" because he did not smile, lie back, and have "thoughts of England" while he was being screwed by party bosses. But then again, that is the difference between those who are party loyalists (like you) and those who are not (like me). Disgraceful actions are disgraceful in and of themselves, not okay or otherwise worth being quiet about when "our guys" do it but then shrieking like a banshee when "their guys" do.
One of the major differences between TR and Reagan was their post presidential years. Reagan was a true statesman when push come to shove and Roosevelt wasn't.
Reagan was an old man of 77 who did not have much else he could do when he left office whereas TR had just turned 50 and still had plenty of gas in the tank. That point aside what exactly did Reagan do of a "statesman-like nature" that you think was so compelling or otherwise accomplishing of something positive??? I cannot think of anything offhand -he gave a great speech at the 1992 convention and attended Republican functions on occasion but that is about it.
By contrast, TR was involved in a much-publicized African Safari in support of science in 1909-10{3}, fought the corruption in his own party in 1911-12, trekked through South America in 1913-14 again to aid in the advancement of science -though that time he was infected by malaria and the result was a loss of a massive amount of weight and health problems that plagued him for the rest of his life.
Despite that though, he campaigned energetically for Charles Evans Hughes in 1916, offered once President Wilson received his declaration of war to raise an all-volunteer infantry, and on party matters also through his efforts at campaigning for Republicans enabled them to regain control of the Congress in 1918 which put an important check on President Wilson's efforts. And besides these things, he was an energetic campaigner for physical fitness and hunting his entire life, supported the Boy Scouts, and wrote a number of books on a variety of subjects from foreign policy to history.
If I did not want to finish this thread as soon as possible, I would supply links in that paragraph to substantiate every point I made. The bottom line is this: the contributions of TR after he was president so dwarfed those of RR that your assertion is (with all due respect) absurd. I do not fault RR for this for a variety of reasons but your deprecation of TR's post-presidential record overall is frankly quite disturbing.
But McCain has repeatedly stuck the knife in the back of the GOP establishment (and it was not even to being a conservative dagger), whereas the other guys didn't. That's the major difference here.
As I said, I can sympathize with some of McCain's annoyance. I find myself embarrassed by the ahistorical and narrow-minded dogmatism of the self-anointed "true conservatives" a lot. The pro lifers particularly are at times embarrassing and I noted this not only recently but indeed in every election cycle since I have been blogging to some extent or another.{4} And I noted it in discussion forums long before anyone had heard of my apologetics stuff and in various conversations and formats prior to that as well. If not for having spent enough time on this response already, I would make quite a list -my position on this has been both ample as well as consistent over the years.
For what could be a response to Medved's Kool Aid drinking (although it isn't actually) Rush's little brother has this to say.
David is wrong: McCain is not "liberal lite." Compared to Obama (8%) and Clinton (9%), McCain's lifetime conservative rating is 82.3%. That is lower than the ratings of Tancredo (97.8%), Brownback (94%), Hunter (92%), Thompson (83%). I am not sure about Guiliani and Romney but if we consider the flop-flop of Romney and Guiliani's views on certain core conservative issues where he is seriously lacking (unlike McCain) it seems probable that both of them would finish lower than McCain on that score. (The American Conservative Union does not rank governors or mayors so this is a nebulous area.)
No, you are wrong. I hinted above that his voting record does not give us a true picture of the real John McCain. How many of John McCain's votes in the Senate were decisive?
Neither you nor I are in a position to know this without an exhaustive review of the Congressional Record.
I think it is undisputable that the legislation he has co-authored and sponsored tells us more about the real John McCain than his voting record. I can't think of any legislation McCain co-authored or sponsored that wasn't only leftist but to the far left.
So because you cannot think of any, that means none exists huh??? You realize presumably that finding just one piece would invalidate your whole presumption. However, I am not sure whether or not you would ignore whatever I would present as if it was non-existent. Certainly without a pledge to avoid such things I will not expend an ounce of time on the matter.{5}
Just the damage wrought by MF itself more than wipes out any positive effect of his voting record.
By whose assessment??? The intention was to (i) control soft money contributions in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees -in not only national but also state and local races-from raising or spending non-federally limited funds and (ii) utilizing issue ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election which named candidates along with any such ad paid for by corporations -be they non profit or unincorporated entities -one that stretches to both business entities as well as union ones.
The result so far is a significantly lessened influence of soft money on campaigns since MF was signed into law. It is a regrettable piece of legislation in several ways this is true and we will see clarifications on it coming from the courts which in my mind is just fine. But I doubt you have taken any time to look soberly at this piece of legislation -a presumption based on your track record thus far in what I have responded to.
Medved is lying through his teeth when he says that MF was only "useless" and has done no real harm, especially to the Right to Life cause. The Wisconsin Right to Life case soundly refutes him there.
One example doth note a definitive statement on this matter make. MF affects a variety of activist causes -among the organizations fined for failure to follow campaigning guidelines in the 2004 election were (according to Wikipedia) the liberal League of Conservation Voters ($180,000) and Moveon.org ($150,000) as well as the conservative Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ($299,500). I do not know the reasons for the fines so levied so am not in a position to say whether they should have been more or less in any given case.
Presumably Medved was referring to the effect of MF on balance as opposed to one particular issue or group. But then again, I am inclined towards giving a charitable interpretation whenever this is feasible to do where the party in question has not given me just cause to not do so. By contrast, you apparently are driven to presume the worst without sufficient cause to do so viz. Medved's statement on this matter. This shows the depth of who really has a "derangement syndrome" here XXXXXXX and I will give you a hint: it is not this little black duck, nosiree.
And MF is as brash a violation of the First Amendment as the criminalization of porn isn't.
You appear to take a Hugo Black approach to the first amendment and historically the courts have never sided with that interpretation -heck the 1919 Schenck vs. United States case{6} is the example that most readily comes to mind. That point being noted though, there is still a question as to the extent of MF in passing constitutional muster. And that being noted, I have no problem with the Supreme Court (in its current configuration under Chief Justice Roberts geared as it evidently is towards judicial restraint) hearing cases on MF.
But it doesn't stop there. You have McCain Leiberman, which is McCain's open vying for the Cardinal's red hat in Pope Algore I's church of the environmentally ill.
You realize presumably that variations of that bill have been introduced since at least 2003 and they have died every time right??? Even the one currently up (S. 280) is nowhere near being in danger of being made into law. But to know this would be to know the status of the bills and the percentage of bills that actually make it out of committee.{7}
I don't think I need to tell you how dangerous the radical evironmentalist agenda is to this country in terms of economics and national security.
I agree with you on that.
And yes there is the McCain Kennedy amnesty bill. This is the only area where the unconservative Bush is anywhere near as liberal as McCain.
Bush is a fiscally irresponsible "dime store new dealer" (cf. B. Goldwater) and McCain is not. There is another issue for you.
Furthermore, if I am not mistaken, McCain's voting record post-2000 is only in the low 60's to high 50's.
It varies from session to session but you are (as you have been thus far) quite spectacularly wrong. The average in that span of time excluding 2007 is...well...you do the math yourself. Here are the numbers:
2006: 65%
2005: 80%
2004: 72%
2003: 80%
2002: 78%
2001: 68%
2000: 81%
I trust you do not need a calculator to figure out that you are (yet again) quite mistaken.
Furthermore, the average numbers are even higher than that prior to 2000 on balance with only five years with a rating of less than 83% going all the way back to not only his first Senate year (1987) but even including his previous four years as a Representative from Arizona (1983-1987). I could say more but once again: the facts do not substantiate your presumption.
If you are going to say that McCain is going to govern more conservatively than Bush you need to bring something more substantive than "Bush has set the bar so low" to the table.
I have not said he would govern more conservatively.{8} What I said was simply that it would not be hard for him to since Bush set the bar so damned low.
Finally, you really have a lot of nerve engaging in the same kind of deadagenting and sophistry that you have railed against (and rightly so) these last few years. In the text of this letter I have pointed out where you have done that to the point of moonbattery.
Since so little of what you said is sustained under examination, you would be wise to not speak so brashly as you have been. I have engaged in no sophistry at all. What I have done is take a view on these matters which accounts for the diverse streams in the well of what is commonly called "conservatism" while you have shown an ahistorical understanding on these matters both wholly and in most of the significant parts. Conservative instincts are good to have (and on balance you have them) but instincts not informed by facts make for a dangerous combination.
I could get up in a twist about having my intelligence so carelessly insulted. But why? I have better things to do than to expend emotion on such nonsensical horseshit.
If anyone should feel their intelligence has been insulted on this, it is me. Kindly do your own homework next time and do not blindly and uncritically genuflect, bow three times, and incense the opinions of either of the Limbaugh boys.
Notes:
{1} Or someone's particular interpretation of an accepted dogma to the exclusion of other possible viewpoints.
{2} If we rule out his signing of the most liberal abortion law in the country when governor of California.
{3} Financed by both Andrew Carnegie and also sales of his own writings.
{4} I do not have time to look for them but the archives of this weblog contain several examples -the most recent one from January of this year:
On the Candidacy of Mike Huckabee and the Political Stupidity of Pro-Lifers (circa January 9, 2008)
{5} I spent enough time tracking down the sources on this note already.
{6} Which upheld the US Sedition Act of 1918.
{7} A hint: it is very small and I gave it to you already.
{8} I did not realize that in responding to the longer email the first time, I actually did say this though I intended more nuance than that. The emailer can consider this to be a victory for them if they want but it would be a pyrrhic victory if they do.
(Part V of a Dialogue)
This is a continuation from the fourth part of this series which can be accessed here. To start from the beginning (if you have not read the previous parts) please go here.
And though I have noted it in every part of the series so far, a reminder of the colour schemata in this series (to cut down on confusion as to the sequence of arguments) still seems pertinent; ergo I reiterate for a final time what I noted in the first part of this series:
The orange font is from the emailer's original email while light blue font is my responses to the emailer's original note. The dark green font is from the emailer's follow-up to my first response while the regular blog font colour is my response to the emailer's follow-up note. Any sources I quote in this note will be in dark blue font and possibly smaller type as a result of the format this original text was taken from (I do not have time to change it). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]
Without further ado...
Furthermore, the Reagan years were an aberration of sorts...in the past hundred ten odd years, there were only three non-establishment Republican candidates: Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. (The Democrats had only one -Harry Truman- in that same span of time if you exclude the thrice defeated William Jennings Bryan.) TR only became president because the establishment plan to shut him up by making him vice president backfired when McKinley was assassinated. He was able to get elected on his own in 1804 and if he had not died when he did, probably would have won in 1920...a story for another time altogether perhaps.
Goldwater broke the back of the establishment in 1964 along with the Democratic stronghold of the south though he lost in a landslide thanks to the establishment doing their part of not supporting him as they should have. But he made an important breakthrough because other than his home state of Arizona, all the states he won electorally were in the deep south: a break of the "solid south" which had been dominated by Democrat electoral power since 1856. This paved the way for Nixon to come through in 1968 and then even more spectacularly in 1972 but Nixon was an establishment candidate. He was replaced by Ford in 1974 and in 1976, the entire establishment supported Ford against Reagan -even Goldwater who basically brokered Nixon's resignation supported Ford over the candidate who was ideologically much closer to himself.
Well, Goldwater was actually closer to Rudy Guiliani that he was to Reagan. Once issues like abortion and homosexuality became issues Goldwater was both pro-gay and pro-abortion.
Sigh...more education is needed on this obviously.
I think it is more than safe to say that Reagan turned out to be a true conservative while Goldwater didn't.
Senator Goldwater did take the view that someone who was gay should not be disallowed in the military if they are competent soldiers. If you are going to oppose his view on that then at least familiarize yourself with it first. It is not a matter of being "pro gay" but instead pro military and recognizing that those who can shoot straight can make valuable contributions to the nation's defense even if they are not personally straight. There is also the recognition that there have been homosexuals in the military in every military since the days of the Roman empire and policies that involve pretending otherwise are both naive as well as stupid.
I happen to have not viewed the gays in the military issue as much of a big deal -ironically I differed from Goldwater on means though not the end if you will. I had no problem with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy when Clinton announced it (unlike Goldwater) and I do not now: it has nothing to do with being "pro gay" any more than defending someone's right to believe something makes me "pro" their view. And I am not going to anathematize Goldwater for disagreeing with me on this issue viz. the means.
As far as the abortion issue goes, to understand Goldwater's position it helps to consider some of his comments from The Congressional Record:
There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." [Senator Barry M. Goldwater: From The Congressional Record (circa September 16, 1981)]
I can not only understand Senator Goldwater's anger on these matters but to some extent I have long shared it. On religious matters it embodies opposing those who would try to make others follow every jot and tittle of their personal opinion as if it was required dogma lest they be viewed as "heterodox" "anathematized", or whatever.{1} On political matters it encapsulates those who try to claim some unique franchise on the term "conservatism" by focusing on one or two issues and disregarding the rest; essentially, ignoring the underlying philosophy of a conservative outlook while uncritically parroting one or two talking points positions which are based on certain foundational presuppositions which they do not bother to question. To quote Goldwater, "just who do they think they are"???
Of course there are some areas where Reagan fared a bit better on the issue of conservatism. Neither man was supportive personally of abortion but they went about it differently. In Goldwater's case, his claim that women had a "right to abortion" late in his life was a recognition that RvW was "settled law" (cf. John Roberts) whether we like it or not. But just because something is "settled law" does not mean it cannot at some point be changed.
Goldwater according to his autobiography was personally was opposed to abortion -viewing it as a states right issue not a federal one. And while Reagan was better on balance than Goldwater on abortion perhaps;{2} nonetheless, on the plethora of what embodies conservative principles, Reagan did not fare as well overall as Goldwater.
For Goldwater was not only opposed to The Great Society as Reagan was but also to The New Deal which Reagan was in many respects not. (My view on this is somewhere between that of Reagan and Goldwater.) But the root difference between Conservatives and Liberals was one that Goldwater noted decades ago in the following fashion:
The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand,—in the name of a concern for "human beings"—regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society's political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel "progress." In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.
Senator Goldwater did not believe in trying to harness any governmental entity to try and "compel progress" regardless of what that proposed "progress" happened to be. He was in other words completely consistent on this matter. The same cannot be said of The Gipper who did not mind trying to use government at times to "compel progress" depending on the issue at hand.
The problem with judicial activism on one hand is it makes one lack credibility when they criticize the other side for doing the same thing: yet this is precisely what the religious right sorts want to try and do. The hallmark of conservatism is advocating the maximum of human liberty consonant with societal order: subsidiarity if you will. And part of subsidiarity is not involving the federal government in the attempt to compel societal virtue.
This is why Goldwater did not favour activist judges of any stripe and Reagan in this area was a bit inconsistent. They were both conservatives, believing in the same core principles but differing at times on how they viewed those principled to be best implemented. Neither was 100% perfect but Goldwater overall was better than Reagan was.
At bottom, your comments about Goldwater reveal to me that you do not really understand the heart of conservative philosophy despite (usually) having some good conservative instincts XXXXXXX. But that is a subject for another time perhaps...I have said all I intend to for now on it.
And if not for Carter being such a horrible president, Reagan would probably not have been elected in 1980. There was that and also because Carter and his advisers made the same mistake in 1980 that Governor Pat Brown and his advisers did in California in 1966: they presumed Reagan was easier to beat than the other major candidates so they sabotaged the front runner to get Reagan as an opponent. So Reagan got the nomination, resisted the attempts to paint him in demonic colours that the Democrats tried to do, and won in 1980 by significantly dominating the south -winning all but Georgia and West Virginia. He added those states in 1984 when he swept the south: the second time a Republican had ever done that. (Nixon was the first in the 1972 election to do it.) Bush Sr. ran as carrying Reagan's mantle the same way that Taft ran as carrying TR's mantle in 1912. And just as Taft was a huge disappointment, so too was Bush Sr. and both of them lost re-election in three party races. The Republicans in 1916 as in 1996 went with an establishment candidate and need I go on??? The bottom line is, what we saw this year is historically more probable than not.
1916, the year of the Bull Moose "It's all about Teddy" debacle.
You mean 1912. Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election in 1916 on the "he kept us out of war" platform winning narrowly.
TR's act of self-agranddizement was both embarrassing and destructive.
In a sense it was sure. But your claim that it was an act of "self-aggrandizement" shows me you do not know much about what actually happened. TR followed the Ben Franklin model and did not campaign for the presidency -noting that he would not seek the nomination but if there was a grass roots movement that supported him, he would not refuse out of a proper sense of duty on the matter. As it happens, there was such a movement from many who were pissed off at the Republican party bosses and the most visible person they could find to champion their cause was TR. I could note more on this but that you do not even realize that TR responded to a movement to draft him and did not lead such a charge himself tells me just how shallow your knowledge on this matter really is.
But you are right about this event having a destructive nature to it as it basically drove the Roosevelt element out of the Republican party and let the conservative oligarchy element to deservedly die on the vine in the general election. But it also opened a new vista in the form of the election primary contributing to the nomination of a candidate.
That election also was one of the first where primaries became a factor in nomination and it was the Roosevelt faction that favoured the primary system as a way of breaking the establishment hold on the party machinery. The problem is, the primaries were not viewed as binding back then but instead as voluntary; ergo Wisconsin Senator Robert LaFollette won two primaries out of the first four, President Taft won two out of the first four, and TR won nine of the last ten including Taft's home state of Ohio which he won by a large margin. The momentum had clearly shifted and Taft was losing where the party bosses were unable to keep a tight control on things. And at the convention, the conservative party bosses rigged the machinery to get a nomination victory for Taft. They did this not only in seating Taft delegates in Alabama and Arizona but also from California -a state that Roosevelt had won. As a result of the California shafting, TR and his delegates saw the screw job in the making and walked out of the convention hall and formed their own party.
Of course you think that TR was the "embarrassment" because he did not smile, lie back, and have "thoughts of England" while he was being screwed by party bosses. But then again, that is the difference between those who are party loyalists (like you) and those who are not (like me). Disgraceful actions are disgraceful in and of themselves, not okay or otherwise worth being quiet about when "our guys" do it but then shrieking like a banshee when "their guys" do.
One of the major differences between TR and Reagan was their post presidential years. Reagan was a true statesman when push come to shove and Roosevelt wasn't.
Reagan was an old man of 77 who did not have much else he could do when he left office whereas TR had just turned 50 and still had plenty of gas in the tank. That point aside what exactly did Reagan do of a "statesman-like nature" that you think was so compelling or otherwise accomplishing of something positive??? I cannot think of anything offhand -he gave a great speech at the 1992 convention and attended Republican functions on occasion but that is about it.
By contrast, TR was involved in a much-publicized African Safari in support of science in 1909-10{3}, fought the corruption in his own party in 1911-12, trekked through South America in 1913-14 again to aid in the advancement of science -though that time he was infected by malaria and the result was a loss of a massive amount of weight and health problems that plagued him for the rest of his life.
Despite that though, he campaigned energetically for Charles Evans Hughes in 1916, offered once President Wilson received his declaration of war to raise an all-volunteer infantry, and on party matters also through his efforts at campaigning for Republicans enabled them to regain control of the Congress in 1918 which put an important check on President Wilson's efforts. And besides these things, he was an energetic campaigner for physical fitness and hunting his entire life, supported the Boy Scouts, and wrote a number of books on a variety of subjects from foreign policy to history.
If I did not want to finish this thread as soon as possible, I would supply links in that paragraph to substantiate every point I made. The bottom line is this: the contributions of TR after he was president so dwarfed those of RR that your assertion is (with all due respect) absurd. I do not fault RR for this for a variety of reasons but your deprecation of TR's post-presidential record overall is frankly quite disturbing.
But McCain has repeatedly stuck the knife in the back of the GOP establishment (and it was not even to being a conservative dagger), whereas the other guys didn't. That's the major difference here.
As I said, I can sympathize with some of McCain's annoyance. I find myself embarrassed by the ahistorical and narrow-minded dogmatism of the self-anointed "true conservatives" a lot. The pro lifers particularly are at times embarrassing and I noted this not only recently but indeed in every election cycle since I have been blogging to some extent or another.{4} And I noted it in discussion forums long before anyone had heard of my apologetics stuff and in various conversations and formats prior to that as well. If not for having spent enough time on this response already, I would make quite a list -my position on this has been both ample as well as consistent over the years.
For what could be a response to Medved's Kool Aid drinking (although it isn't actually) Rush's little brother has this to say.
David is wrong: McCain is not "liberal lite." Compared to Obama (8%) and Clinton (9%), McCain's lifetime conservative rating is 82.3%. That is lower than the ratings of Tancredo (97.8%), Brownback (94%), Hunter (92%), Thompson (83%). I am not sure about Guiliani and Romney but if we consider the flop-flop of Romney and Guiliani's views on certain core conservative issues where he is seriously lacking (unlike McCain) it seems probable that both of them would finish lower than McCain on that score. (The American Conservative Union does not rank governors or mayors so this is a nebulous area.)
No, you are wrong. I hinted above that his voting record does not give us a true picture of the real John McCain. How many of John McCain's votes in the Senate were decisive?
Neither you nor I are in a position to know this without an exhaustive review of the Congressional Record.
I think it is undisputable that the legislation he has co-authored and sponsored tells us more about the real John McCain than his voting record. I can't think of any legislation McCain co-authored or sponsored that wasn't only leftist but to the far left.
So because you cannot think of any, that means none exists huh??? You realize presumably that finding just one piece would invalidate your whole presumption. However, I am not sure whether or not you would ignore whatever I would present as if it was non-existent. Certainly without a pledge to avoid such things I will not expend an ounce of time on the matter.{5}
Just the damage wrought by MF itself more than wipes out any positive effect of his voting record.
By whose assessment??? The intention was to (i) control soft money contributions in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees -in not only national but also state and local races-from raising or spending non-federally limited funds and (ii) utilizing issue ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election which named candidates along with any such ad paid for by corporations -be they non profit or unincorporated entities -one that stretches to both business entities as well as union ones.
The result so far is a significantly lessened influence of soft money on campaigns since MF was signed into law. It is a regrettable piece of legislation in several ways this is true and we will see clarifications on it coming from the courts which in my mind is just fine. But I doubt you have taken any time to look soberly at this piece of legislation -a presumption based on your track record thus far in what I have responded to.
Medved is lying through his teeth when he says that MF was only "useless" and has done no real harm, especially to the Right to Life cause. The Wisconsin Right to Life case soundly refutes him there.
One example doth note a definitive statement on this matter make. MF affects a variety of activist causes -among the organizations fined for failure to follow campaigning guidelines in the 2004 election were (according to Wikipedia) the liberal League of Conservation Voters ($180,000) and Moveon.org ($150,000) as well as the conservative Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ($299,500). I do not know the reasons for the fines so levied so am not in a position to say whether they should have been more or less in any given case.
Presumably Medved was referring to the effect of MF on balance as opposed to one particular issue or group. But then again, I am inclined towards giving a charitable interpretation whenever this is feasible to do where the party in question has not given me just cause to not do so. By contrast, you apparently are driven to presume the worst without sufficient cause to do so viz. Medved's statement on this matter. This shows the depth of who really has a "derangement syndrome" here XXXXXXX and I will give you a hint: it is not this little black duck, nosiree.
And MF is as brash a violation of the First Amendment as the criminalization of porn isn't.
You appear to take a Hugo Black approach to the first amendment and historically the courts have never sided with that interpretation -heck the 1919 Schenck vs. United States case{6} is the example that most readily comes to mind. That point being noted though, there is still a question as to the extent of MF in passing constitutional muster. And that being noted, I have no problem with the Supreme Court (in its current configuration under Chief Justice Roberts geared as it evidently is towards judicial restraint) hearing cases on MF.
But it doesn't stop there. You have McCain Leiberman, which is McCain's open vying for the Cardinal's red hat in Pope Algore I's church of the environmentally ill.
You realize presumably that variations of that bill have been introduced since at least 2003 and they have died every time right??? Even the one currently up (S. 280) is nowhere near being in danger of being made into law. But to know this would be to know the status of the bills and the percentage of bills that actually make it out of committee.{7}
I don't think I need to tell you how dangerous the radical evironmentalist agenda is to this country in terms of economics and national security.
I agree with you on that.
And yes there is the McCain Kennedy amnesty bill. This is the only area where the unconservative Bush is anywhere near as liberal as McCain.
Bush is a fiscally irresponsible "dime store new dealer" (cf. B. Goldwater) and McCain is not. There is another issue for you.
Furthermore, if I am not mistaken, McCain's voting record post-2000 is only in the low 60's to high 50's.
It varies from session to session but you are (as you have been thus far) quite spectacularly wrong. The average in that span of time excluding 2007 is...well...you do the math yourself. Here are the numbers:
2006: 65%
2005: 80%
2004: 72%
2003: 80%
2002: 78%
2001: 68%
2000: 81%
I trust you do not need a calculator to figure out that you are (yet again) quite mistaken.
Furthermore, the average numbers are even higher than that prior to 2000 on balance with only five years with a rating of less than 83% going all the way back to not only his first Senate year (1987) but even including his previous four years as a Representative from Arizona (1983-1987). I could say more but once again: the facts do not substantiate your presumption.
If you are going to say that McCain is going to govern more conservatively than Bush you need to bring something more substantive than "Bush has set the bar so low" to the table.
I have not said he would govern more conservatively.{8} What I said was simply that it would not be hard for him to since Bush set the bar so damned low.
Finally, you really have a lot of nerve engaging in the same kind of deadagenting and sophistry that you have railed against (and rightly so) these last few years. In the text of this letter I have pointed out where you have done that to the point of moonbattery.
Since so little of what you said is sustained under examination, you would be wise to not speak so brashly as you have been. I have engaged in no sophistry at all. What I have done is take a view on these matters which accounts for the diverse streams in the well of what is commonly called "conservatism" while you have shown an ahistorical understanding on these matters both wholly and in most of the significant parts. Conservative instincts are good to have (and on balance you have them) but instincts not informed by facts make for a dangerous combination.
I could get up in a twist about having my intelligence so carelessly insulted. But why? I have better things to do than to expend emotion on such nonsensical horseshit.
If anyone should feel their intelligence has been insulted on this, it is me. Kindly do your own homework next time and do not blindly and uncritically genuflect, bow three times, and incense the opinions of either of the Limbaugh boys.
Notes:
{1} Or someone's particular interpretation of an accepted dogma to the exclusion of other possible viewpoints.
{2} If we rule out his signing of the most liberal abortion law in the country when governor of California.
{3} Financed by both Andrew Carnegie and also sales of his own writings.
{4} I do not have time to look for them but the archives of this weblog contain several examples -the most recent one from January of this year:
On the Candidacy of Mike Huckabee and the Political Stupidity of Pro-Lifers (circa January 9, 2008)
{5} I spent enough time tracking down the sources on this note already.
{6} Which upheld the US Sedition Act of 1918.
{7} A hint: it is very small and I gave it to you already.
{8} I did not realize that in responding to the longer email the first time, I actually did say this though I intended more nuance than that. The emailer can consider this to be a victory for them if they want but it would be a pyrrhic victory if they do.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
On the Exodus of Karl Rove:
[Note: This thread was written ten days ago but only finished for posting (with some last minute adjustments including omitting parts of the text for a later posting) today. -ISM]
As far as thesoon-to-be exit of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, I have a mixed view. Ultimately he is to President Bush what Dick Morris was to President Clinton: a tactician whose pluses outweighed his minuses in that area. He also was one who was no small source of irritation to those whose views he worked at opposing.{1} My initial hunch despite claims made by Rove that this is family motivated is that there is a political reason also but that should not surprise readers of this weblog presumably.
I am not claiming that Rove is lying about the family claim as people can and do make decisions for a variety of reasons. But he is a political animal and taking the politics out of someone like Rove is not easy to do. I am sure at some election level, Rove will have involvement in 2008. But back to my personal view of Rove which is mixed and always has been. The main burr under my saddle with him was the support of the illegal immigrants amnesty: that is effectively dead for the time being though it will rise like Jason in a bad Friday the 13th sequel as soon as the 2008 elections are over -of that we can be sure so vigilance is definitely called for in that area. But that is a subject for another time and back to the subject of Karl Rove we go.
I am sure there will be many who will try to make Rove's accomplishments look far more meager than they are among the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) crowd. After all, he is Senator Palpatine to Bush's Darth Vader to that crowd. Plus, there is a tradition of treating the president as an idiot who has his strings pulled by nefarious behind the scenes sorts remains alive and well it seems -except this time the fixture of the caricature was not Jewish.{2}
I also suppose the lack of a Jewish mastermind who pulls the president's strings is a minor improvement worth noting though I suspect that the BDS crowd will point to Kristol, Wolfowitz, and Ledeen and probably claim Rove was their puppet or something along those lines. Unless they try and claim that Rove's real name is Rovestein or something along those lines -who knows what the Mother Jones and World Socialist Review sorts will do in this area. About all I will predict is that it will be a standard illogical diatribe or more and have a number of very predictable operative presuppositions behind it -one of which is to blame the Jews for everything though not usually as brazenly as the John Birch Society sorts do.{3}
But however those sorts spin it, Karl Rove is gone now from the Bush Administration. I also predict that if the Republicans win back congress and retain the White House in 2008 that we will hear the predictable "stolen election" crap that has been the stock in trade of those moonbats since they tried it in 2000{4} and for the sake of not going off on another tangent will spare the readers at this time examples of the hypocritical double standards of the latter sorts of people.
Notes:
{1} The difference is that people who were opposed to Clinton had a begrudging respect for Morris despite their annoyance at him. By contrast, those suffering from BDS (see the main post text above) froth at the mouth when talking about Rove every bit as much as they do with Dubya.
{2} This pattern if memory serves started in the adminstration of President Woodrow Wilson who was the supposed "dummy puppet" of Col. Edward Mandell House his chief advisor. (House also was an advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt in the latter's first term.)
{3} I have been planning to write a bit on the conspiracy theory mindset and why it is not worth taking seriously so part of this post can be considered a prelude of sorts on that subject much as a few others in recent months have been.
{4} And many of which are still deluded enough to believe was an accurate description of reality.
[Note: This thread was written ten days ago but only finished for posting (with some last minute adjustments including omitting parts of the text for a later posting) today. -ISM]
As far as the
I am not claiming that Rove is lying about the family claim as people can and do make decisions for a variety of reasons. But he is a political animal and taking the politics out of someone like Rove is not easy to do. I am sure at some election level, Rove will have involvement in 2008. But back to my personal view of Rove which is mixed and always has been. The main burr under my saddle with him was the support of the illegal immigrants amnesty: that is effectively dead for the time being though it will rise like Jason in a bad Friday the 13th sequel as soon as the 2008 elections are over -of that we can be sure so vigilance is definitely called for in that area. But that is a subject for another time and back to the subject of Karl Rove we go.
I am sure there will be many who will try to make Rove's accomplishments look far more meager than they are among the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) crowd. After all, he is Senator Palpatine to Bush's Darth Vader to that crowd. Plus, there is a tradition of treating the president as an idiot who has his strings pulled by nefarious behind the scenes sorts remains alive and well it seems -except this time the fixture of the caricature was not Jewish.{2}
I also suppose the lack of a Jewish mastermind who pulls the president's strings is a minor improvement worth noting though I suspect that the BDS crowd will point to Kristol, Wolfowitz, and Ledeen and probably claim Rove was their puppet or something along those lines. Unless they try and claim that Rove's real name is Rovestein or something along those lines -who knows what the Mother Jones and World Socialist Review sorts will do in this area. About all I will predict is that it will be a standard illogical diatribe or more and have a number of very predictable operative presuppositions behind it -one of which is to blame the Jews for everything though not usually as brazenly as the John Birch Society sorts do.{3}
But however those sorts spin it, Karl Rove is gone now from the Bush Administration. I also predict that if the Republicans win back congress and retain the White House in 2008 that we will hear the predictable "stolen election" crap that has been the stock in trade of those moonbats since they tried it in 2000{4} and for the sake of not going off on another tangent will spare the readers at this time examples of the hypocritical double standards of the latter sorts of people.
Notes:
{1} The difference is that people who were opposed to Clinton had a begrudging respect for Morris despite their annoyance at him. By contrast, those suffering from BDS (see the main post text above) froth at the mouth when talking about Rove every bit as much as they do with Dubya.
{2} This pattern if memory serves started in the adminstration of President Woodrow Wilson who was the supposed "dummy puppet" of Col. Edward Mandell House his chief advisor. (House also was an advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt in the latter's first term.)
{3} I have been planning to write a bit on the conspiracy theory mindset and why it is not worth taking seriously so part of this post can be considered a prelude of sorts on that subject much as a few others in recent months have been.
{4} And many of which are still deluded enough to believe was an accurate description of reality.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
On the "Indefinite Detainment" Complaint:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
There have been some public agitators who have whined about the issue of indefinite detainment of persons in the current war we are involved in. The purpose of this posting is to respond to that issue but first, here is a recap of one of the arguments made along these lines before your host responds to it.
It appears nobody is actually going to address the issue of man who has been in jail for a year without any charges being brought against him and who stands entirely at the mercies of Leviathan.
Weird.
To start with, the authority whereby President Bush has detained Bilal Hussein is the same one that was used to detain Mahar Arar. It is the Alien Enemies Act passed by the Congress and signed into law by President John Adams back in 1798 during The Quasi-War. It was one of four acts passed by both houses of Congress signed by President Adams along with an Enemy Alien Act, a Sedition Act, and a Naturalization Act -the latter extending the length of time for naturalization from five to fourteen years. The Naturalization Act did not have an expiration date but was repealed in 1802 by President Jefferson. The Sedition Act was enacted with an expiration date of March 3, 1801 before Jefferson took office and was never renewed in that form.{1} The Alien Friends Act enabled the president to deport "resident alien considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." It was enacted June 25, 1798 with a two year expiration date and allowed to lapse.
The Alien Enemies Act was enacted on July 6, 1798 and empowered the president to apprehend and deport aliens whose home countries were at war with the United States. This is why Mahar Arar was deported to Syria -the latter is his home country and the latter has been involved in the war in Iraq by supporting the insurgency for the benefit of some of these sorts who seem to forget that. Likewise, Bilal Hussein is detained in Iraq because -guess why??? Guess his country of origin can you??? The answer of course is Iraq where he happens to be detained.
The Alien Enemies Act has never been rescinded and thus remains in force. Among the Founding Fathers who approved of it based on either public support for it or no known public opposition to it were (besides President Adams) a number of those who were involved in the creation of the US Constitution. (President George Washington, Gouvernor Morris, Rufus King, and Alexander Hamilton to mention just a few.) Unlike a lot of the other acts, the Alien Enemies Act had broad support of Federalists and Republicans{2} as it was a measure specifically aimed at wartime which is what was anticipated at that time was to happen with France.
The measure was was opposed by the exceedingly pro-French Thomas Jefferson and also by James Madison -the latter to his credit changing his mind on the matter{3} later on. These measures were enacted during a time of war and are wartime measures which again is what we are involved in here. While most of these acts never came before the US Supreme Court -as they expired before the establishment of judicial review in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803- it has been a standard of sorts to bemoan these matters in peacetime but recognize in wartime that the freedoms we take for granted in peacetime are not and indeed cannot be as extensive as they are when at war.{4}
This is why the principle behind President Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the War Between the States{5} was by American law valid. This is why whatever one thinks about World War I and President Woodrow Wilson, there was enacted in 1917 a US Sedition Act and a US Espionage Act and these nattering nincompoops should thank their lucky stars we do not have those acts enacted today or else they could well be behind bars themselves as a threat to national security.{6} Unlike the Sedition Act signed by President Adams which did expire, the one signed by President Wilson came before the Supreme Court in 1919 and was wisely upheld in the following words:
When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. [Schenck v. United States (circa 1919)]
In a world of great mobility and where we are fighting wars not on our own soil, this is a prism for viewing the issue of indefinite detainment. Or should I say that would be my argument if not for having the act in its totality at my fingertips and knowing of the existence of section two of the act which reads as follows:
And be it further enacted, That after any proclamation shall be made as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the several courts of the United States, and of each state, having criminal jurisdiction, and of the several judges and justices of the courts of the United States, and they shall be, and are hereby respectively, authorized upon complaint, against any alien or alien enemies, as aforesaid, who shall be resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President of the United States shall and may establish in the premises, to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint. and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties of their good behaviour, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations which shall and may be established as aforesaid, and may imprison, or otherwise secure such alien or aliens, until the order which shall and may be made, as aforesaid, shall be performed. [Alien Enemies Act Section 2 (signed into law by President John Adams on July 6, 1798)]
This was of course written in an era where people were not able to be mobile to the extent they are now. While on the books for over two hundred years, this has only been enacted during times of war.{7} And (of course) this is the authority that President Franklin Roosevelt was able to use to issue an Executive Order interning the Japanese-Americans and also Americans of Italian and German descent during World War II. Later on, the Congress passed legislation in 1950 and again in 1952 giving the attorney general the authority to hold an alien in custody without bail.
So for all the public bitching about these matters by the historically ignorant, they happen to be matters of United States law and some of these provisions go back over two hundred years including the very Alien Enemies Act that gave President Bush the authority to deport and detain both Mahar Arar and Bilal Hussein.
Of course if certain persons knew their history better, they perhaps would not make such misinformed statements. But apparently, lacking knowledge on issues is not an impediment to them pontificating on them so do not expect to see a secession of their own accord on these matters. If anything they will probably just shout louder as if that somehow covers for their egregious ignorance on these matters but I have said all I plan to on this issue for the time being.
Notes:
{1} I say "in that form" because there was a Sedition Act enacted at a later date -a point I touched on earlier in the thread above.
{2} This is what the party of Jefferson and Madison originally called themselves. It functioned as a party from 1792 until 1824 when there was a party schism. (One branch of that schism was led by Andrew Jackson and is the start of the party today that goes by the name Democratic Party.)
{3} Indeed. the very same James Madison who opposed this act during the Adams administration supported it when he was president during the War of 1812. Hopefully the "Allah Bless Al Queda" contingent is starting to notice a pattern here. James Madison recognized when he was president the same thing that John Adams did before him and it is this: freedom of speech in a time of war has to have its limits.
{4} And yes, much as these pontificating peons cannot seem to fathom it, we are at war right now whether they like it or not.
{5} And he was right to do so during the War Between the States.
{6} By their defacto giving aid and comfort to the enemy they would be eminently qualified for being jailed.
{7} And it is wholly appropriate for reasons spelled out by the Supreme Court in Shenck vs. the United States even though the act being contested there was the US Sedition Act (which was repealed in 1921) and not the still-intact Alien Enemies Act.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
There have been some public agitators who have whined about the issue of indefinite detainment of persons in the current war we are involved in. The purpose of this posting is to respond to that issue but first, here is a recap of one of the arguments made along these lines before your host responds to it.
It appears nobody is actually going to address the issue of man who has been in jail for a year without any charges being brought against him and who stands entirely at the mercies of Leviathan.
Weird.
To start with, the authority whereby President Bush has detained Bilal Hussein is the same one that was used to detain Mahar Arar. It is the Alien Enemies Act passed by the Congress and signed into law by President John Adams back in 1798 during The Quasi-War. It was one of four acts passed by both houses of Congress signed by President Adams along with an Enemy Alien Act, a Sedition Act, and a Naturalization Act -the latter extending the length of time for naturalization from five to fourteen years. The Naturalization Act did not have an expiration date but was repealed in 1802 by President Jefferson. The Sedition Act was enacted with an expiration date of March 3, 1801 before Jefferson took office and was never renewed in that form.{1} The Alien Friends Act enabled the president to deport "resident alien considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." It was enacted June 25, 1798 with a two year expiration date and allowed to lapse.
The Alien Enemies Act was enacted on July 6, 1798 and empowered the president to apprehend and deport aliens whose home countries were at war with the United States. This is why Mahar Arar was deported to Syria -the latter is his home country and the latter has been involved in the war in Iraq by supporting the insurgency for the benefit of some of these sorts who seem to forget that. Likewise, Bilal Hussein is detained in Iraq because -guess why??? Guess his country of origin can you??? The answer of course is Iraq where he happens to be detained.
The Alien Enemies Act has never been rescinded and thus remains in force. Among the Founding Fathers who approved of it based on either public support for it or no known public opposition to it were (besides President Adams) a number of those who were involved in the creation of the US Constitution. (President George Washington, Gouvernor Morris, Rufus King, and Alexander Hamilton to mention just a few.) Unlike a lot of the other acts, the Alien Enemies Act had broad support of Federalists and Republicans{2} as it was a measure specifically aimed at wartime which is what was anticipated at that time was to happen with France.
The measure was was opposed by the exceedingly pro-French Thomas Jefferson and also by James Madison -the latter to his credit changing his mind on the matter{3} later on. These measures were enacted during a time of war and are wartime measures which again is what we are involved in here. While most of these acts never came before the US Supreme Court -as they expired before the establishment of judicial review in Marbury vs. Madison in 1803- it has been a standard of sorts to bemoan these matters in peacetime but recognize in wartime that the freedoms we take for granted in peacetime are not and indeed cannot be as extensive as they are when at war.{4}
This is why the principle behind President Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the War Between the States{5} was by American law valid. This is why whatever one thinks about World War I and President Woodrow Wilson, there was enacted in 1917 a US Sedition Act and a US Espionage Act and these nattering nincompoops should thank their lucky stars we do not have those acts enacted today or else they could well be behind bars themselves as a threat to national security.{6} Unlike the Sedition Act signed by President Adams which did expire, the one signed by President Wilson came before the Supreme Court in 1919 and was wisely upheld in the following words:
When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. [Schenck v. United States (circa 1919)]
In a world of great mobility and where we are fighting wars not on our own soil, this is a prism for viewing the issue of indefinite detainment. Or should I say that would be my argument if not for having the act in its totality at my fingertips and knowing of the existence of section two of the act which reads as follows:
And be it further enacted, That after any proclamation shall be made as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the several courts of the United States, and of each state, having criminal jurisdiction, and of the several judges and justices of the courts of the United States, and they shall be, and are hereby respectively, authorized upon complaint, against any alien or alien enemies, as aforesaid, who shall be resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President of the United States shall and may establish in the premises, to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint. and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties of their good behaviour, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations which shall and may be established as aforesaid, and may imprison, or otherwise secure such alien or aliens, until the order which shall and may be made, as aforesaid, shall be performed. [Alien Enemies Act Section 2 (signed into law by President John Adams on July 6, 1798)]
This was of course written in an era where people were not able to be mobile to the extent they are now. While on the books for over two hundred years, this has only been enacted during times of war.{7} And (of course) this is the authority that President Franklin Roosevelt was able to use to issue an Executive Order interning the Japanese-Americans and also Americans of Italian and German descent during World War II. Later on, the Congress passed legislation in 1950 and again in 1952 giving the attorney general the authority to hold an alien in custody without bail.
So for all the public bitching about these matters by the historically ignorant, they happen to be matters of United States law and some of these provisions go back over two hundred years including the very Alien Enemies Act that gave President Bush the authority to deport and detain both Mahar Arar and Bilal Hussein.
Of course if certain persons knew their history better, they perhaps would not make such misinformed statements. But apparently, lacking knowledge on issues is not an impediment to them pontificating on them so do not expect to see a secession of their own accord on these matters. If anything they will probably just shout louder as if that somehow covers for their egregious ignorance on these matters but I have said all I plan to on this issue for the time being.
Notes:
{1} I say "in that form" because there was a Sedition Act enacted at a later date -a point I touched on earlier in the thread above.
{2} This is what the party of Jefferson and Madison originally called themselves. It functioned as a party from 1792 until 1824 when there was a party schism. (One branch of that schism was led by Andrew Jackson and is the start of the party today that goes by the name Democratic Party.)
{3} Indeed. the very same James Madison who opposed this act during the Adams administration supported it when he was president during the War of 1812. Hopefully the "Allah Bless Al Queda" contingent is starting to notice a pattern here. James Madison recognized when he was president the same thing that John Adams did before him and it is this: freedom of speech in a time of war has to have its limits.
{4} And yes, much as these pontificating peons cannot seem to fathom it, we are at war right now whether they like it or not.
{5} And he was right to do so during the War Between the States.
{6} By their defacto giving aid and comfort to the enemy they would be eminently qualified for being jailed.
{7} And it is wholly appropriate for reasons spelled out by the Supreme Court in Shenck vs. the United States even though the act being contested there was the US Sedition Act (which was repealed in 1921) and not the still-intact Alien Enemies Act.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On Woodrow Wilson From A Contemporary - And A Lot of What is Wrong With Much of What Passes For "Thought" These Days From Most People)
I sometimes think the man has no sense of things that penetrate below the surface. With him, the rhetoric of a thing is the thing itself. He is either wanting in understanding or convictions, or both. Words -phrases, felicity of expression and a blind egotism have been his stock in trade. [Senator Robert LaFollette]
(On Woodrow Wilson From A Contemporary - And A Lot of What is Wrong With Much of What Passes For "Thought" These Days From Most People)
I sometimes think the man has no sense of things that penetrate below the surface. With him, the rhetoric of a thing is the thing itself. He is either wanting in understanding or convictions, or both. Words -phrases, felicity of expression and a blind egotism have been his stock in trade. [Senator Robert LaFollette]
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
On the 2006 Elections and Historical Patterns:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I had a phone conversation on Sunday night with a friend who frequently reads this humble weblog. Within that conversation, the subject of the 2006 elections came up and I outlined a strategy for those elections which included a "recess appointment" for John Bolton. It is nice to see that the Bush Administration is actually considering this option because politically it is a very savvy move. For those who know their history, political savvy is going to be needed in much greater supply than normal in the next year and a half. I will outline in this post reasons for that seemingly bold assertion.
To start with, I have noted before that a year is an eternity in politics.{1} For that reason alone, what seems like a certain thing now may not be that way a year from now. (Let alone a year and a half from now.) But that does not mean that there are not certain lessons that history can teach us of general tendencies which can give us probablities of what is more likely than not to happen. And it is utilizing the latter that I intend to do in the rest of this post in discussing the 2006 elections.
By all historical indicators of norms, the 2006 elections should favour the Democrats because historically the party which holds the White House loses ground in the midterm elections of a two-term president as a rule. And while many might scoff at the idea of the current crop of Democrats achieving that kind of feat, it frankly does not matter as a rule how potent or impotent they are politically. And as a brief outline from recent history should help clarify this a bit, that is what we will do at this time.
Of the presidents who were elected or served two terms or more in the twentieth century, we have Theodore Roosevelt{2}, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman{3}, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon{4}, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. And while we could perhaps take this examination back more than a hundred years, a century should suffice to show a definite pattern of probability. So let us do that now starting with the presidency of the twentieth century's greatest president: Theodore Roosevelt.
What happened with the 1906 midterms under Teddy Roosevelt for the Senate is irrelevant since senators were not elected until the 1914 elections. So from what was elected in 1906, we have the House of Representatives and the Republicans lost seats in that midterm election. Our next two termer was Woodrow Wilson and Wilson's party was severely chastised in the 1918 elections in both houses of congress.{5}
In 1926, the incumbent president was Calvin Coolidge and the Republicans controlled Congress. Those facts did not change after the election but the Republicans did lose seats in both houses despite retaining control of both bodies. Franklin Roosevelt's party lost a lot of ground in the 1938 midterms{6} and under Truman the Republicans regained control of the two houses of Congress in the 1946 midterms for the first time since 1933.{7}
Despite winning in 1956 by a landslide in the presidential elections, the country went into a minor recession in late 1957 which carried over into the 1958 midterms. The result was that the Reoublicans lost seats in the 1958 second term midterm election.{8} We all know what happened in the midterms after Richard Nixon's landslide 1972 election win: the president resigned and Republicans did not escape the fallout in the 1974 elections -losing badly in both houses of Congress. Ronald Reagan it is true won by a landslide in a three way election in 1980 and saw the Republicans capture the Senate for the first time in twenty-five years. But the economic proposals he set forth in 1981 were not to bear fruit until 1983 and his party failed to capture the House of Representatives in 1982 as a result.{9}
Despite President Reagan winning the 1984 election with the largest landslide in history, the Republicans did not fare well in 1986. Though they only lost five seats in the House and eight in the Senate, the result of the latter was losing control of the Senate which they had held since 1980.
Whatever one wants to say about President Clinton, the 1998 midterms were kinder to him than they were to his predecessors in the twentieth century. Though the Republicans retained control of both houses (which they won in landslide fashion in the 1994 midterms), they actually lost five seats in the House and the senate remained unchanged. 2006 will be the midterm elections of George W. Bush's second term. And while Republican strategists can take solace in seeing the last two term president avoid the second term jinx, that should properly be seen as an anomoly of the general trend.
Knowing that, what can the Republicans do to avoid falling prey to the probabilities of history??? Well, I believe recess appointments are the key here. President Bush should appoint Bolton to the UN Ambassadorship in recess capacity and also appoint a bunch of the judges that the Democrats are unconstitutionally filibustering. That will ensure that they serve until January of 2007 and would make the subject of the judiciary and the UN appointment of Bolton election issues in 2006. In light of the fact that (i) most Americans do not appear to be enamoured of the judicial filibustering of the Democratic Party and (ii) in light of the general dislike of most Americans for the UN, these would be excellent election gambles for the Republicans to make.
Again I must specify that the Republicans have to make some proactive moves now to prepare for 2006 and the apparent inclination to recess appoint Bolton is an excellent start. I would recommend as three additional strategies that they (i) recess appoint all the judges that the Democrats did not agree to avoid filibustering in the so-called "filibuster deal",{10} (ii) persuade President Bush to make as his first nominee for the Supreme Court one of the three candidates that the Democrats agreed to not filibuster at the apellate level, and (iii) persuade a solid candidate to run against Hillary Clinton in 2006 for her New York Senate seat.
The best candidate for potentially defeating Hillary Clinton in the opinion of your humble servant is Rudy Giuliani. Rudy is quite likely (in light of the liberal climate of New York politics in general) one of the only candidates that could conceivably defeat Hillary in 2006 for her Senate seat. A defeat in 2006 would kill her viability as a presidential candidate in 2008.11} Even if Rudy did not beat her, he could conceivably weaken her enough to have a vicious primary fight for the nomination which she would be less likely to win. Either way, the Republicans would be fools to not try and take her out of the 2008 running in 2006...even if the end result is that she wins by a slim margin and is thus more vulnerable in 2008. Let us hope that the Stupid Party{12} actually does not live up to their well-earned nickname...let us hope...
Notes:
{1} A year before a presidential election is an eternity in politics. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa Decembr 9, 2003)]
I trust that the reader recognizes that this principle applies equally as well to any kind of political election as it does to presidential elections.
{2} TR assumed the presidency on the assassination of President McKinley in 1901. But for all intensive purposes, he served roughly eight years or two terms so I include him here.
{3} Truman assumed the presidency after FDR died very learly in his fourth term and was president until the inauguration of Eisenhower. So he for all intensive purposes served two terms too.
{4} He was elected for two terms; ergo I include him here.
{5} The Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress.
{6} The Republicans gained 72 House seats in that election and 6 Senate seats.
{7} I realize this is not a second term midterm example but it suffices to show that even first term midterms can be problematical at times for the incumbent party holding the executive branch.
{8} The Republicans lost 48 House seats and 13 Senate seats in the 1958 midterms.
{9} See footnote seven.
{10} This would expose that so-called "filibuster deal" for the sham that it was - and with all likelihood right in the middle of the 2006 election season.
{11} [A]ll of this is reason enough to make sure that the Democrats lose in '04. That will buy us time to persuade New Yorkers to dump her from the Senate in '06. Because I do not believe she would run in '08 if she was defeated in '06. After all, if a Democrat cannot win in New York - which like Massachusetts is basically a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party politically - then they will not win the White House. But if she wins in '06, she will run in '08 even though she will probably claim in the '06 campaign that she will serve out her term. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 30, 2003)]
{12} By those of us very conservative Independents who cannot give the Republican Party our loyalty because of the sickening degree of "me-tooism" amongst the Republican Party viz. how they govern: which is 180 degrees different from how they campaign to win elections.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I had a phone conversation on Sunday night with a friend who frequently reads this humble weblog. Within that conversation, the subject of the 2006 elections came up and I outlined a strategy for those elections which included a "recess appointment" for John Bolton. It is nice to see that the Bush Administration is actually considering this option because politically it is a very savvy move. For those who know their history, political savvy is going to be needed in much greater supply than normal in the next year and a half. I will outline in this post reasons for that seemingly bold assertion.
To start with, I have noted before that a year is an eternity in politics.{1} For that reason alone, what seems like a certain thing now may not be that way a year from now. (Let alone a year and a half from now.) But that does not mean that there are not certain lessons that history can teach us of general tendencies which can give us probablities of what is more likely than not to happen. And it is utilizing the latter that I intend to do in the rest of this post in discussing the 2006 elections.
By all historical indicators of norms, the 2006 elections should favour the Democrats because historically the party which holds the White House loses ground in the midterm elections of a two-term president as a rule. And while many might scoff at the idea of the current crop of Democrats achieving that kind of feat, it frankly does not matter as a rule how potent or impotent they are politically. And as a brief outline from recent history should help clarify this a bit, that is what we will do at this time.
Of the presidents who were elected or served two terms or more in the twentieth century, we have Theodore Roosevelt{2}, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman{3}, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon{4}, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. And while we could perhaps take this examination back more than a hundred years, a century should suffice to show a definite pattern of probability. So let us do that now starting with the presidency of the twentieth century's greatest president: Theodore Roosevelt.
What happened with the 1906 midterms under Teddy Roosevelt for the Senate is irrelevant since senators were not elected until the 1914 elections. So from what was elected in 1906, we have the House of Representatives and the Republicans lost seats in that midterm election. Our next two termer was Woodrow Wilson and Wilson's party was severely chastised in the 1918 elections in both houses of congress.{5}
In 1926, the incumbent president was Calvin Coolidge and the Republicans controlled Congress. Those facts did not change after the election but the Republicans did lose seats in both houses despite retaining control of both bodies. Franklin Roosevelt's party lost a lot of ground in the 1938 midterms{6} and under Truman the Republicans regained control of the two houses of Congress in the 1946 midterms for the first time since 1933.{7}
Despite winning in 1956 by a landslide in the presidential elections, the country went into a minor recession in late 1957 which carried over into the 1958 midterms. The result was that the Reoublicans lost seats in the 1958 second term midterm election.{8} We all know what happened in the midterms after Richard Nixon's landslide 1972 election win: the president resigned and Republicans did not escape the fallout in the 1974 elections -losing badly in both houses of Congress. Ronald Reagan it is true won by a landslide in a three way election in 1980 and saw the Republicans capture the Senate for the first time in twenty-five years. But the economic proposals he set forth in 1981 were not to bear fruit until 1983 and his party failed to capture the House of Representatives in 1982 as a result.{9}
Despite President Reagan winning the 1984 election with the largest landslide in history, the Republicans did not fare well in 1986. Though they only lost five seats in the House and eight in the Senate, the result of the latter was losing control of the Senate which they had held since 1980.
Whatever one wants to say about President Clinton, the 1998 midterms were kinder to him than they were to his predecessors in the twentieth century. Though the Republicans retained control of both houses (which they won in landslide fashion in the 1994 midterms), they actually lost five seats in the House and the senate remained unchanged. 2006 will be the midterm elections of George W. Bush's second term. And while Republican strategists can take solace in seeing the last two term president avoid the second term jinx, that should properly be seen as an anomoly of the general trend.
Knowing that, what can the Republicans do to avoid falling prey to the probabilities of history??? Well, I believe recess appointments are the key here. President Bush should appoint Bolton to the UN Ambassadorship in recess capacity and also appoint a bunch of the judges that the Democrats are unconstitutionally filibustering. That will ensure that they serve until January of 2007 and would make the subject of the judiciary and the UN appointment of Bolton election issues in 2006. In light of the fact that (i) most Americans do not appear to be enamoured of the judicial filibustering of the Democratic Party and (ii) in light of the general dislike of most Americans for the UN, these would be excellent election gambles for the Republicans to make.
Again I must specify that the Republicans have to make some proactive moves now to prepare for 2006 and the apparent inclination to recess appoint Bolton is an excellent start. I would recommend as three additional strategies that they (i) recess appoint all the judges that the Democrats did not agree to avoid filibustering in the so-called "filibuster deal",{10} (ii) persuade President Bush to make as his first nominee for the Supreme Court one of the three candidates that the Democrats agreed to not filibuster at the apellate level, and (iii) persuade a solid candidate to run against Hillary Clinton in 2006 for her New York Senate seat.
The best candidate for potentially defeating Hillary Clinton in the opinion of your humble servant is Rudy Giuliani. Rudy is quite likely (in light of the liberal climate of New York politics in general) one of the only candidates that could conceivably defeat Hillary in 2006 for her Senate seat. A defeat in 2006 would kill her viability as a presidential candidate in 2008.11} Even if Rudy did not beat her, he could conceivably weaken her enough to have a vicious primary fight for the nomination which she would be less likely to win. Either way, the Republicans would be fools to not try and take her out of the 2008 running in 2006...even if the end result is that she wins by a slim margin and is thus more vulnerable in 2008. Let us hope that the Stupid Party{12} actually does not live up to their well-earned nickname...let us hope...
Notes:
{1} A year before a presidential election is an eternity in politics. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa Decembr 9, 2003)]
I trust that the reader recognizes that this principle applies equally as well to any kind of political election as it does to presidential elections.
{2} TR assumed the presidency on the assassination of President McKinley in 1901. But for all intensive purposes, he served roughly eight years or two terms so I include him here.
{3} Truman assumed the presidency after FDR died very learly in his fourth term and was president until the inauguration of Eisenhower. So he for all intensive purposes served two terms too.
{4} He was elected for two terms; ergo I include him here.
{5} The Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress.
{6} The Republicans gained 72 House seats in that election and 6 Senate seats.
{7} I realize this is not a second term midterm example but it suffices to show that even first term midterms can be problematical at times for the incumbent party holding the executive branch.
{8} The Republicans lost 48 House seats and 13 Senate seats in the 1958 midterms.
{9} See footnote seven.
{10} This would expose that so-called "filibuster deal" for the sham that it was - and with all likelihood right in the middle of the 2006 election season.
{11} [A]ll of this is reason enough to make sure that the Democrats lose in '04. That will buy us time to persuade New Yorkers to dump her from the Senate in '06. Because I do not believe she would run in '08 if she was defeated in '06. After all, if a Democrat cannot win in New York - which like Massachusetts is basically a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party politically - then they will not win the White House. But if she wins in '06, she will run in '08 even though she will probably claim in the '06 campaign that she will serve out her term. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 30, 2003)]
{12} By those of us very conservative Independents who cannot give the Republican Party our loyalty because of the sickening degree of "me-tooism" amongst the Republican Party viz. how they govern: which is 180 degrees different from how they campaign to win elections.
Saturday, July 05, 2003
SecretAgentMan vs. Rerum Novarum on Communion Posture and the Authority of Bishops:
(Part IV of V)
The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of the thread, please go HERE.
The Diocesan Paper has in fact claimed that kneeling Catholics are disobeying the direct instructions of the Vatican. That is calumnious.
Agreed.
The Diocesan Paper has in fact claimed that kneeling Catholics are disregarding the personal preference of the Bishop, and doing so in a climate (which its own pages have intentionally created) where that can only bring obloquy and odium to them. That is detracting.
Again, I concur with you.
The Diocesan Paper has in fact claimed that Catholics kneel because we have unworthy motives of rebellion and antipathy for Catholicism. That is suspicion.
I agree again.
I'm sure this scandalous cruelty stems (like all cruelty) from what are thought to be the highest and purest motives, and that the editors would be upset to think they're intentionally driving Catholics out of their parishes in tears (which has, in fact, happened) and provoking animosity and spitefulness between Catholics and their priests (which has, in fact, occurred). But that doesn't make it right, or even sane.
I agree. Few things are more disappointing to me than those who seem to presume the worst motives in others. This is a problem of epidemic proportions in the church today. Is it any wonder that there is so much strife??? And will anyone dare claim that this is not a direct byproduct of such serial suspicion and uncharitable attitudes taken towards others who may not agree with us???
If a campaign to encourage perceptions of schism, heresy, and betrayal is warranted, then surely it is warranted regarding a host of subjects about which the Diocsean Paper has remained oddly and timidly silent.
Indeed. They have a strange way of picking their targets.
There are Catholic politicians in this Diocese who support abortion on demand and receive communion regularly.
There are Catholics in this Diocese who regularly commune despite having divorced and remarried without recourse to the Church's annulment tribunal.
There are Catholics in this Diocese who use contraception and provide it to their children, and there are Catholics in this Diocese who openly condone homosexuality.
All of which is sadly true.
As far as one can tell from the Diocesan Paper's silence, a Catholic who does these things need not fear for his reputation, because he uses a politically-correct posture to "eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Cor. 11:29).
I will not judge the internal forum of anyone (nor I am sure would you). But in light of what is tacitly passed over compared to what is focused on, there are no shortage of "blind guides who strain out the gnat but swallow the camel" (Matthew xxiii,24) - as you detail well above.
I am put in mind of what Julia told Winston in 1984 -- so long as you keep the little rules, you can break all the big ones. That seems to be the Diocesan Paper's editorial priority as well -- who cares if you put your fourteen-year-old daugher on the pill, so long as you keep her from kneeling to receive communion!
Or to paraphrase another Orwell classic Animal Farm: "all rules are equal. But some are more equal than others."
And isn't it doubly-odd to imagine a fourteen-year-old girl who kneels to receive communion being on the pill to avoid getting pregnant by her fifteen-year-old boyfriends?
I would not make the presumption that kneeling to receive communion would mitigate against what you have noted. I know of some fellow parishoners at SSPX who knelt to receive communion yet who went on to have children out of wedlock. Likewise, there were actually some modernists who preferred the Tridentine liturgy for aesthetic reasons over the Pauline liturgy. One should never consider any liturgy - or form of communion reception - to be a bulwark against error in and of itself. As long as there are flawed people in the equation, no law however sacred is safe from being contravened.
A good way to sum this thought up is with the words of the late French Premier George Clemenceau. The latter noted at Versailles in 1918 when discussion of the Armistice was being worked out that God has given us ten commandments and we have broken every single one of them. Now [President Woodrow] Wilson gives us his fourteen points...we shall see... The same principle applies here.
If you ask me, there's a question far more worthy of the Diocesan Paper's resources than its present affection for twine-and-chewing-gum arguments about the heresy of people who want to immitate St. Padre Pio and kneel whenever God appears.
I agree with you SAM but of course there is also the issue of obedience to lawful authority. I went over the subject of traditional obedience in a recent weblog series and will not reiterate it here. However, it is important to note that disobedience is disobedience even if what we are talking about is in terms of gravity of malice the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony.
I will end this with a quote from an earlier Rerum Novarum entry on the subject of liceity and the entire "kneel or not kneel" subject. Click on the appendix link below for the final installment of this thread.
To go to the Appendix, click HERE
(Part IV of V)
The previous installment of this thread can be read HERE. To start from the beginning of the thread, please go HERE.
The Diocesan Paper has in fact claimed that kneeling Catholics are disobeying the direct instructions of the Vatican. That is calumnious.
Agreed.
The Diocesan Paper has in fact claimed that kneeling Catholics are disregarding the personal preference of the Bishop, and doing so in a climate (which its own pages have intentionally created) where that can only bring obloquy and odium to them. That is detracting.
Again, I concur with you.
The Diocesan Paper has in fact claimed that Catholics kneel because we have unworthy motives of rebellion and antipathy for Catholicism. That is suspicion.
I agree again.
I'm sure this scandalous cruelty stems (like all cruelty) from what are thought to be the highest and purest motives, and that the editors would be upset to think they're intentionally driving Catholics out of their parishes in tears (which has, in fact, happened) and provoking animosity and spitefulness between Catholics and their priests (which has, in fact, occurred). But that doesn't make it right, or even sane.
I agree. Few things are more disappointing to me than those who seem to presume the worst motives in others. This is a problem of epidemic proportions in the church today. Is it any wonder that there is so much strife??? And will anyone dare claim that this is not a direct byproduct of such serial suspicion and uncharitable attitudes taken towards others who may not agree with us???
If a campaign to encourage perceptions of schism, heresy, and betrayal is warranted, then surely it is warranted regarding a host of subjects about which the Diocsean Paper has remained oddly and timidly silent.
Indeed. They have a strange way of picking their targets.
There are Catholic politicians in this Diocese who support abortion on demand and receive communion regularly.
There are Catholics in this Diocese who regularly commune despite having divorced and remarried without recourse to the Church's annulment tribunal.
There are Catholics in this Diocese who use contraception and provide it to their children, and there are Catholics in this Diocese who openly condone homosexuality.
All of which is sadly true.
As far as one can tell from the Diocesan Paper's silence, a Catholic who does these things need not fear for his reputation, because he uses a politically-correct posture to "eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." (1 Cor. 11:29).
I will not judge the internal forum of anyone (nor I am sure would you). But in light of what is tacitly passed over compared to what is focused on, there are no shortage of "blind guides who strain out the gnat but swallow the camel" (Matthew xxiii,24) - as you detail well above.
I am put in mind of what Julia told Winston in 1984 -- so long as you keep the little rules, you can break all the big ones. That seems to be the Diocesan Paper's editorial priority as well -- who cares if you put your fourteen-year-old daugher on the pill, so long as you keep her from kneeling to receive communion!
Or to paraphrase another Orwell classic Animal Farm: "all rules are equal. But some are more equal than others."
And isn't it doubly-odd to imagine a fourteen-year-old girl who kneels to receive communion being on the pill to avoid getting pregnant by her fifteen-year-old boyfriends?
I would not make the presumption that kneeling to receive communion would mitigate against what you have noted. I know of some fellow parishoners at SSPX who knelt to receive communion yet who went on to have children out of wedlock. Likewise, there were actually some modernists who preferred the Tridentine liturgy for aesthetic reasons over the Pauline liturgy. One should never consider any liturgy - or form of communion reception - to be a bulwark against error in and of itself. As long as there are flawed people in the equation, no law however sacred is safe from being contravened.
A good way to sum this thought up is with the words of the late French Premier George Clemenceau. The latter noted at Versailles in 1918 when discussion of the Armistice was being worked out that God has given us ten commandments and we have broken every single one of them. Now [President Woodrow] Wilson gives us his fourteen points...we shall see... The same principle applies here.
If you ask me, there's a question far more worthy of the Diocesan Paper's resources than its present affection for twine-and-chewing-gum arguments about the heresy of people who want to immitate St. Padre Pio and kneel whenever God appears.
I agree with you SAM but of course there is also the issue of obedience to lawful authority. I went over the subject of traditional obedience in a recent weblog series and will not reiterate it here. However, it is important to note that disobedience is disobedience even if what we are talking about is in terms of gravity of malice the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony.
I will end this with a quote from an earlier Rerum Novarum entry on the subject of liceity and the entire "kneel or not kneel" subject. Click on the appendix link below for the final installment of this thread.
To go to the Appendix, click HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)