Semi-Popular Progressive

Happy Belated New Year. After 4 years and a month of commenting on politics, progressive and otherwise, I am continuing my last year trend of tapering off posts in 2011. Although over 10,000 people from around the world checked in on my blog last year, a fact that astounds this guy from Iowa, I feel that if I am to offer commentary at all, it should be with the same fervor that got me started in the first place.

With that in mind, 2011 will be a year with many stories emanating from Iowa. After all, the Iowa Caucuses are around the corner and the usual media blitz will follow as surely as birds fell out of the sky in Arkansas. However, as fellow bloggers like John Deeth are much better at the day to day coverage of such events and I encourage political trainspotters to follow John's blog. He is a great blogger and I tip my virtual hat to his raspberry beret.

As for me, I am writing a novel and will likely spend limited time commenting on the here and now, mostly because my novel is political fiction and I want to use the "good stuff" in that context. I will continue to post columns as events and issues strike my fancy.

A couple of 2010 notes:

The Democratic Party got an electoral whipping (yes, even in Iowa), but it should not have been a surprise. The Obama brand rose quickly and short of him genetically being fused with Annie Sullivan, ther was no way he could continue in the media-driven role of "the miracle worker." However, the party did themselves no favors by letting the narrative of 2010 to be "you're with us or against us." Clearly most voters didn't like what they were seeing and took it out on the party in power. Um, that's politics.

That being said, the repeal of DADT and the approval of the New START treaty were good exclamation points to end the year on. The Republicans take over the House with the majority of voters thinking that it doesn't matter who runs it, but will be flying up their agenda to make the case that if only there was a Republican in the White House again, they could get things done. The national agenda will be parlayed into the electioneering game as the circus comes to Iowa in the months to come. If President does not have any competition, expect Iowa to be the place where Republican candidates try to make the case for why they will be better for the country than him.

However, the thing to watch this year are the redistricting efforts across the country. In Iowa, Republicans who have the state house and governor's mansion are trying to make sure they have the state supreme court covered too by using the recent victory to not retain three justices that ruled on the side of marriage equality as a launching pad to impeach the remaining justices. What is really at stake is the tie-breaker if the plans for redistricting are not to the clear benefit of the Republican party. In Iowa, if a redistricting plan can not be agreed upon, the state supreme court is the final word. Politics, can't live with 'em, can't rule without 'em.

Who Is the Party of the MOTR?

It appears from the conversations and so on that I've had with people who attended the Democratic and Republican Party district conventions that some didn't feel very well respected. Been there, done that. Political parties by their natures are fairly incestuous and are not really looking for new ideas, but rather new ways to sell the ideas they already have.

Let's talk about you and me. Most people are not party joiners, though we tend to affiliate to one or the other of the D or R parties at least once every few years. Every election we are told is decided by the "middle." And for this reason I would argue it is this way because the middle doesn't have a party of our own; hence the other two prevail.

Anyone who has tried to join one of these parties soon comes to realize that it is hard to accomplish substantial movement. Why? Because the parties' hierarchy know what has worked for them and, frankly, both major parties are arch conservatives when it comes to moving away from their sacred cows.

So why not just join an established third party? Once again, the doctrine is drawn. As John Mellencamp, Malcolm X, and Alexander Hamilton all sort of said, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." All parties stand for something, but none stand for what most people think is right. Hence we are a nation of flip-floppers who go back and forth generally between D's and R's.

Early in our nation's heritage, choosing between two was quite a step up from Monarchy. However, I think that many people agree that neither party really represents what main street or the mainstream think. In fact each party claims to feel our pain, but in reality, they are counting up our votes.

So why not join the Tea Party? Well, who is the Tea Party and do they represent mainstream values? According to the Tea Part Patriots' website they stand for:


Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.

Up to point number three, I could get behind those principles. In fact, taken with point number two, we really can't have a free market. Why, because the Constitution tells us we need taxes and those taxes are haggled over by those whom we elect. A so-called free market can't exist as long as we ask people to pony up money to have a government do things for us.

So, no Tea Party for me, and I doubt for many folks who are happy to have trash pickups, clean water, aid to families with dependent children, social security, etc. Also for those who aren't willing to lose arms and legs working in uncontrolled manufacturing plants and don't pay a living wage.

So what would the Middle of the Road Party look like? Beats the heck out of me. We haven't had our convention, chosen our leaders, or created our platform. There is not a party and so the climb is long and the odds are against us.

If I were to venture a guess, the MOTR party would place the future of kids at the forefront. It would tend to be hopeful, but cautious in what this country does both here and abroad. It would insist that rules were enforced, but the rules were fair in the first place. It would be a party that celebrates pragmatism--where some change would come fast and others a little at a time. It would not seek to win by putting the other parties down, but to win by articulating the things that people believe are in the best interest of the country, even if they aren't always in the immediate best interest to themselves. Yes, it would uphold the Constitution. And, of course, it would be fiscally responsible.

I also believe it would be hard to build. It would ask people to disengage from the politics they understand to be how things are done and engage in conversations with people in a way that doesn't make me right and you wrong. It would put us in a whole new place. It would be a bold venture to be sure.

Chet Culver Needs to Get Out More

While out of state in Ohio this past weekend, I felt badly for missing Gov. Culver's visit to the Hamburg Inn for a chat with The People. Having not supported the Big Lug when he ran against Ed Fallon in the last go round, I am not particularly surprised at the way his first term has gone. When I attended the Labor Day picnic and watched him spend most of his time pitching E-85 to members of local unions, I thought, this guy really doesn't care about his audience much. And, given his insular behaviors as Governor, it should not be surprising that he is likely going to be fighting the campaign of his life, if he is to be re-elected--and this is sort of sad with the stellar group he is up against.
But, as a Democrat in a state that needs to create and save jobs, Culver has been remarkably disappointing. First, because he has bitten the hand of labor that helped elect him (though very recently threw them a bone)and, second, by a lack of creativity to use the resources he has at his disposal to improve the welfare of the state. For instance, why has the "reinvention" of state government not been a "day one" priority? Why did he call for 10% across the board cuts to agencies when some agencies are of higher priority than others (e.g., anything having to do with human services)? Why hasn't the Governor negotiated with AFSME for salary cuts in lieu of forced-retirement? And in offering incentives for retirement, why hasn't the state at least required retirees to live in Iowa for the 5 years that the state is paying their health benefits?
And I won't go into the failures on agriculture, the environment, but to say that Culver hasn't lived up to his campaign promises on these two fronts. Iowa has massive potential to feed and fuel itself, but to do it sustainably has been the trick. Monsanto and ADM have done well for themselves under Culver, but not the local family farmer or those who would grow organics. Part of this, of course, is in part because of Secretary of Agriculture, Bill Northey, but the Chief Executive of the state has a lot to say about policy.

Senate Candidate Krause Calls for Drawdown in Afghanistan

From Bob Krause's campaign:

Speaking to an audience of Democrats at the Iowa Democratic Party's annual Jefferson Jackson Day dinner on Saturday night, Bob Krause of Fairfield became the first candidate in the Iowa U.S. Senate race to call for a drawdown of troops in Afghanistan.

"It is my view as a retired military officer and a student of military strategy that we need to disengage from Afghanistan because what we are doing is not strategically sustainable,” Krause told the crowd at a rally following the keynote speech by Vice President Joe Biden.

"We are in direct danger of committing our remaining uncommitted national reserve of troops so that we have nothing left for emergencies,” Krause explained. “Further, I seriously doubt that we need to keep the Taliban at bay in Afghanistan to secure our national security. We are putting large numbers of U. S. and foreign troops in the land that invented xenophobia. Unfortunately this troop insertion stirs the pot and makes the situation much worse than it needs to be.”

“I hope that, when President Obama makes his troop strength decision after Thanksgiving, he does not accept the advice of the neoconservatives, and instead does the prudent thing and closes out this war that former President Bush lost through inaction several years ago,” said Krause.

In extended remarks after the speech, Krause added, "Joe Biden in right on this one. We are spending $60 billion per year in the war in Afghanistan and 2 billion on Pakistan, even though Pakistan is strategically more important to us.”

“If the Pakistanis can control the Pashtuns within their own borders, it will have a very positive spin-off effect on the Pashtun nation in Afghanistan,” said Krause. “Insuring that Pakistan can continue as a cohesive nation is where our strategic emphasis needs to be. Having our forces in Afghanistan drives Taliban into Pakistan and actually helps to destabilize Pakistan.”

Krause warned that our trying to control Afghanistan directly with U. S. troops not only causes backfires, but it is incredibly costly. “If we put in an additional 40,000 new troops -- at a cost of about 1 million dollars per soldier in the field -- this will put the new war budget for Afghanistan at $100 billion,” said Krause. “This for a war that, even by known guerilla warfare statistical planning factors, we would be unlikely to win because it just is not enough troops.”

Krause also pointed out that this figure does not include the “80 year tail on government costs for treating the additional 10,000 per year Post Traumatic Stress Disorder cases that would likely come from the insertion of the additional soldiers.”

"Iowans need to call President Obama and ask him to listen to those who are urging caution, and not to those who want to continue and to escalate this strategically untenable battle," concluded Krause.

A former state legislator, school board member and transportation official, Krause has served as the president of the Iowa Department of the Reserve Officers Association and is currently chair of the Iowa Democratic Veterans Caucus.

After the Election: Every Day Will Be Game Day for Democrats

If the Democrats have the Super Tuesday many, myself inclded, expect them to have, DNC chair Howard Dean will likely release the loudest scream he's ever produced--and rightfully so. With his Democracy for America grassroots party building initiatives(and Barack Obama's candidacy has certainly helped that)--the Democrats are poised to have a majority in two or perhaps all three branches of the federal government, as well as many gains on the state level.

The crucial step for the Democrats will be to prove that they have earned the trust of those who voted them. This will be a far more difficult thing to accomplish. Whether it is fair or not to say, the last eight years have actually set the bar far higher for the next administration because of the waste of all kinds of capital--human, social, and political.

The issue for the Democrats will be to show discipline and focus in delivering on the campaign promises made. For all of our sakes, we had better hope and be prepared to hold their feet to the fire so that they are not blinded by power (as so often is the case when one party holds sway). The checks-and-balances here are that the Republicans, independents, and the party's own grassroots can be very unforgiving.

Biden: His Time

Senator Joe R. Biden of Delaware will be the choice for V.P. by Democratic-presidential-nominee-in-waiting, Barack Obama. Biden, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and former head of the Senate Judiciary Committee brings solid foreign affairs and judicial credentials to shore up what is considered to be Barack Obama's relative weaknesses. According to his Senate website, "Senator Richard Lugar, who is currently the top Republican on the committee has said: "Senator Biden has a very strong commitment to a bipartisan foreign policy and serves as a good example for everyone in Congress. He has a very broad, comprehensive view of the world. He's a good listener, but he's also a strong and effective advocate of his position." U.S. News & World Report described Senator Biden as "the Democrats' chief anti-crime specialist on Capitol Hill." He served as the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee for 16 years, including an extended term as Chairman from 1987-95. Today, Senator Biden is the Chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, where he continues to lead the debate on criminal justice and public safety issues."

Senator Biden's championed the Adam Walsh Act, which helps protect children against predators and wrote and passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Joe Biden has an 80% lifetime rating from the ACLU, the second-highest of any major-party 2008 presidential candidate (Dennis Kucinich, at 89%, was number one).

According to About.com, "Biden was the only 2008 Democratic presidential candidate to have voted in favor of the ban on live intact D&X ("partial birth") abortions in 2003. He has remained relatively silent on the Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart ruling, which upheld the ban. Otherwise, his pro-choice record is flawless--he has received an 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America for three consecutive years, and his record prior to 2003."

With regard to marriage equality, "Biden voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, but has been quoted as saying 'I don't know why we should be frightened of [same-sex marriage].' Although he sees same-sex marriage as a likely inevitability, he has not taken the step of actually supporting it. Instead, he supports a civil unions policy that would grant the same legal rights. He also supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), federal hate crime legislation that includes sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories, and the repeal of 'don't ask, don't tell.'"

"He is a supporter of capital punishment, and holds the distinction of being the author of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (often referred to as the "Biden crime bill"), which expanded the federal death penalty to include drug trafficking, a nonviolent offense."

Biden, who dropped out of contention after the Iowa caucus in his own bid for the presidency, was considered one of half a dozen leading candidates for the Veep position. His issue positions can be found here.

FL and MI delegates: Half a Loaf--Dem Party Fractured

On a day that saw Barack and Michele Obama choose to separate themselves from the controversies surrounding their church by leaving it, the Democratic party's rules committee borroed from the Old Testament by playing Solomon and deciding to seat half the delegates from Florida and Michigan, preserving Obama's delegate lead while bringing party delegates's from the two states in from the cold. The winner will need 2,118. According to a count by the Associated Press, as of last night, Obama controlled 2,052 delegates to Clinton's 1,877.

While this may serve to placate some party members, the Clinton camp continues to cry foul, particularly concerning Michigan's delegates. Clinton soldier, Harold Ickes, arguing that the Michigan compromise "is not a good way to start down the path of party unity," Ickes warned that Clinton had authorized him to note that she will "reserve her rights to take it to the credentials committee" later.

If there was ever a time when the Democrats need to look at the larger picture, now is that time. The chronic infighting that has gone on may have the cumulative effect to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, if the disenchanted M.O.R. voters sees John McCain, who is known to be a hot head in his own right, to be the relative voice of reason.

There is no doubt that the nomination has not been won, but in trying to decide on a party nominee, Democrats need to look ahead to November and make decisions that ensure party unity will happen in Denver.

Is It Over or Full Speed Ahead?

Barack Obama won a decisive victory in North Carolina by slightly less than 230,000 votes last night and Hillary Clinton has won in Indiana by slightly more than 22,000 votes, so where does it leave things? If the statements of the candidates count for anything, it looks like more of the same all the way to the convention. The sad thing is that there is no legitimate way for either candidate to win the nomination outright without the influence of the superdelegates who may be more likely to use "electability" as determined by polling to affect their decision-making.

As a John Edwards supporter, we learned first hand that electability as measured by polls is hardly reliable. Remember that Hillary Clinton began as the "most electable" until she lost in Iowa. One of the tacts that Edwards supporters used was the idea that John Edwards was the most electable of the Democrats over any of the Republican candidates. As Edwards' campaign ran out of cash, it was clear that the logic didn't hold sway with voters who could have chosen to keep donating.

However superdelegates are party insiders who could be swayed by polls. It is my sincere hope that if the Democratic party hopes to hold itself together that the popular vote and earned delegates will be more influential than the limitations of polling which frankly is a snapshot in time, not a predictor of long-term outcomes.

Superdelegates: We're the Deciders

What if the superdelegates had a convention and decided whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were the Democratic Party nominee? The trial balloon is out there. But, as Democrats, will the party rank and file feel that the party nominee is the result of backroom dealing, rather than democracy in action?

From McClatchy News via Truthout

Democrats, looking for a way out, are pondering a new idea: an unprecedented "mini convention" to bring their punishing presidential season to an early close.

The proposal surfaced during another week of pushing and shoving between the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns and a growing concern that the party may be hurting itself beyond repair.

Without some resolution, they fret, Republican John McCain will win the presidency.

"If we continue down the path we are on, we might as well hand the keys of the White House to John McCain," said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo.

The mini-convention would bring together nearly 800 superdelegates after the last primaries are held in early June.

Given the current math, superdelegates - party officials and elected leaders - will decide the nomination, one way or another.

"There would be a final opportunity for the candidates to make their arguments to these delegates, and then one transparent vote," Tennessee Gov. Philip Bredesen suggested in the New York Times.

Superdelegates, both pledged and unpledged, reacted cautiously to the idea. But they all agreed that something needed to be done to bridge the growing gap between Clinton and Obama supporters.

"We've got to stop the bickering that's going on," said Leila Medley of Jefferson City, Mo., an uncommitted superdelegate. "There's no doubt about that."

"While you trade barbs, McCain is uniting the Republican Party," U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon wrote both campaigns in mid-March. "In the next six weeks, McCain can sit back, amass his war chest, concentrate his base and delight as you deconstruct each other."

That outcome seemed unthinkable just weeks ago, when record voter turnouts, the ongoing Iraq war, a slumping economy and a fat bank account convinced many Democrats they had a clear path to the presidency.

But new polls tell a different story: Some last week showed McCain beating Obama and Clinton, after he trailed both candidates just two weeks ago.

A focus on race and gender hasn't helped. Neither did more name-calling after Florida's Democrats, then Michigan's, failed to reach agreement on a plan to seat their disputed delegates.

And the party still hasn't figured out how its superdelegates should vote - as independent agents or as a reflection of the popular vote.

"It seems to me if we have a nominee come Labor Day with a very deeply divided party and morally exhausted party, I think we have a problem," Bredesen said.

He promised any superdelegate gathering would be "tight" and "businesslike," helping the party avoid "brutal and unnecessary warfare" this summer.

Obama called it "interesting." Sens. Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Charles Schumer of New York said the idea might have merit. Clinton, Bredesen said, did not reject the idea.

But several rank-and-file superdelegates in Kansas and Missouri called the trial balloon a lot of hot air.

"I'm sure there are a number of us who would get beat up behind closed doors," Medley said. "I think what we need to do is get the two of them in a room."

NY Governor and Clinton Supporter Spitzer in Deep Trouble

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has, according to the NY Times, admitted to dealing with a prostitution ring despite his actions as New York's Attorney General to be tough on them. While the details have not been released yet, it creates an awkward situation for Hillary Clinton who was endorsed by Spitzer in May of 2007 for president.

This is a significant problem for the Democratic Party in New York and remains to be seen how the blowout from this scandal will play out. Republicans in the state will waste no time to make hay out of this.

Already there is speculation that Spitzer will resign as Governor.

Spitzer's public statementno reference to resignation.

SPITZER: I apologize first, and most importantly, to my family. I apologize to the public, whom I promised better.

I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals. It is about ideas, the public good and doing what it best for the state of New York.

But I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family.