Paul Soglin: Waxing America

Kutler on Republican Executive Powers

Waxing America's favorite Emeritus Professor in the entire galaxy, the esteemed University of Wisconsin Constitutional scholar Stanley Kutler, reminds us that the Republican Party, with an almost century long record of limiting the power of the president, now embraces what could be called an imperial presidency:

  Hunkering Down in Baghdad

Voltaire had it right: history is nothing but a pack of tricks that we play on the dead...

...Executive power expanded enormously during World War II. After the war, old guard Republicans, still rooted in isolationism, proposed a constitutional amendment to give Congress authority to regulate all executive agreements with foreign powers....Republican concerns that first President Franklin D. Roosevelt at Yalta and then President Harry S. Truman at Potsdam had bargained away too much....The GOP also objected to Truman’s sending troops to Korea in 1950 without congressional approval.

Kulter notes that with the Bush Administration is "... betting that the rest of the world, from Europe to Asia, will quietly accept U.S. troops to defend their economic interests..."

Kutler writes that Bush "may have made a prophet of former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who said last September that “the Iraq war is largely about oil” and essential for the global economy."

Understanding Cuba, the United States and the Embargo

Few nations that have joined Cuba on the list on countries that the United States does not recognize. There are no countries that have suffered the economic devastation Cuba experienced as a result of the embargo.

The fundamentals of United States policy towards Cuba are premised on three factors:

1. Since Fidel Castro's ascent to power, there have been no free and democratic elections in Cuba.
2. There is no free speech in Cuba and there are serious human right violations including imprisonment and execution.
3. The Cuban government expropriated foreign-owned privately held property, especially that held by companies like United Fruit and the corporations that owned the hotels.

If the United States were to use free and democratic elections as the standard for diplomatic recognition, outside of Western Europe, we would have to sever relations with over half of the nations of the world. In any case, prior to Castro's assent to power there had not been democratic elections in Cuba for two decades.

Tragically, there are far too many nations of the world that mistreat its citizens. Whether it is poets and journalists, gays or political dissenters, the list of nations who do not tolerate those who are different and outspoken is much too long. And we recognize and extend trade to most of them. Just ask the Chinese. There is no long line clamoring to boycott the Olympics in China.

As for the expropriation of property, whether it was Germans taking the property of Jews, or the Chinese taking everyone's property, that has not been a standard for U.S. diplomatic recognition. More importantly the United States is in denial as to how that property was originally acquired. The property owned by non-Cubans seized by the Cuban government was often acquired by coercion and bribery following the Spanish-American War.

Since 1960, the U.S. treatment of Cuba has been illogical and unfair. Cuba made great advancements in improving health care and educational systems despite the U.S. embargo.  The economy of the nation is in ruins because of that embargo. There is no question that Cuba has engaged in human rights violations. U.S. policy has only exacerbated conditions for Cubans.

(I visited Cuba in 1975, 1976 and 1978. On two of those trips I had the opportunity to meet with Fidel Castro.)

Understanding Obama's Win in Wisconsin, County by County

With half of ninety percent of Wisconsin tallied, it is clear that Barack Obama won, and won decisively. In between the total returns are these gems:

• Obama is handily trouncing Hillary Clinton in, of all places, northern Wisconsin's vacation destination, Door County. More impressive than the Obama 60-40 domination is that over two-thirds of the votes were in the Democratic column. That could be lack of interest in the Republican candidates, but more likely it is moderate Republicans and independents embracing Obama.
• In conservative Republican Green County less than 25% of the votes went to GOP candidates.  Again, Obama is scoring over 60% against Clinton.
• Green County, the most solid Republican suburban county, cast 7300 Democratic votes and 2000 Republican votes.
• Statewide, Hillary Clinton's total is greater than all of the Republican totals.

The implications:

• The Obama candidacy is stronger than the numbers show. Hillary Clinton has a margin of 3-5% that is Republican cross-over that will vote McCain in November.
• The Obama support from moderate voters is genuine.
• When the candidates move to Ohio and Texas, Obama will get even stronger as long as there are no major blunders.

Conservative talk radio spent much of the week embracing a vote for Hillary since the Republican primary was meaningless. The logic was that Hillary would be easier to defeat in November, and heavens forbid if the Democrats take the White House, Hillary would be more conservative than Obama.

Looking at the size of the vote in both parties, the distribution of the vote between Clinton and Obama, it is safe to say that Republican votes cast for Obama are genuine, Republican votes cast for Clinton are not.

That means two different things when comparing Obama's vote to first Hillary Clinton and then the Republicans. First, it means his margin of victory over Clinton is greater than it appears because insincere Republicans voted for her but not for him. Secondly, when we project this to Democratic and Republican splits in November, the total Democratic vote total will drop off as insincere Republicans Clinton voters return to their party to vote for McCain. (8:48am I rewrote this section because the original was clumsy and poorly worded.)

When we discussed the why of all of this of WTDY last night with Sly, John Nichols of The Capital Times and The Nation, there was a conclusion expressed by Bill Lueders of Isthmus and shared by the rest of us to one degree or another:

Hillary Clinton has already disappointed us, Barack Obama will, but he has not, yet.

I am not as cynical as Bill, he is a real journalist, but so long as there is hope and the remote chance that on critical issues, Obama will honor those who elected him, he will receive their support. Hillary Clinton cannot devise a winning strategy under those circumstances.

As the night drew on the Obama margin holding at 55% began to creep up. First to 56% and then quickly 58%. At the half way point during the evening, little of Madison and Milwaukee had reported. It is now clear as the state's two largest cities report, pushing both of their counties to 66% for Obama, that the young voters of all colors are responding to his message.

The young white voters had made a foray into Wisconsin elections in November, 2006 enticed by the thought of defeating the 'marriage' amendment to the state Constitution offered by the Republicans. More stunning is the response by the traditionally lowest cadre to turn out, young black voters.

The long term implications for progressives is significant if the Democrats do not blow it.

Update: A post from Ton Hayden fifteen minutes after the polls closed. We Have a Nominee

Obama Reflects My Core Values...and My Generation - As I See It

There is no question that major events shape a generation and influence their response to events. Growing up during the Great Depression influenced a generation that was to become wary of Wall Street and felt that government regulation of financial institutions was necessary. The war in Vietnam influenced a generation that grew suspicious of government whether they were on the left or the right.

Generational events do not have that profound an influence on core values. Of all the the major candidates, clearly I am more of the generation of Hillary Clinton than John McCain or Barack Obama.

When it comes to core values I am far more comfortable with Obama. Obama opposed the war in Iraq from the outset, questioning both its premises and the assertions upon which that disaster was based. The disappointment I feel about Hillary Clinton is not just that she supported the war, but she should have known better, given that she had already seen another administration lie us into the war in Vietnam.

I share much with Hillary Clinton and the first gentleman, if she should be elected. Gun control, a national fix to the health insurance crisis, and placing a higher priority on education and workforce development are a few examples.

If Obama gets the nomination and runs against John McCain, the generation card will be played even more. Then the real silliness will begin.

Be sure to listen to WTDY, 1670 AM,  when I join Sly, John Nichols from The Capital Times, and others to discuss election results at 8:00 PM Tuesday night.

Obama as Viewed From the Right, the late Right

I have to read Mark Belling every week to see if there is fodder for a post. Thank you, Mark.

This week Belling tells us, Wisconsin win could propel Obama

Weeks ago it looked like Wisconsin’s late primary was an irrelevancy. It’s turning out to be just the opposite. If I’m right about Obama’s win, it could be the victory that propels him to the party nomination.

Readers of Waxing America knew that a week ago starting with a series of posts, the first appearing the morning of Super Tuesday. (Actually Texas and Ohio, more so the Buckeye State, will determine if an Obama nomination is inevitable. Even if Clinton takes Texas, if Obama takes Ohio, he has it.)

What fascinates is that Belling follows the other right-wing radio pundits down a path that concludes with this pithless observation:

Like it or not, I have to vote on Tuesday. I refuse to cop out and vote for someone who has pulled out of the race or write in somebody else. That leaves me with a choice between Hillary, Obama, McCain and the Huckster... That narrows my choice to Hillary Clinton or John McCain. 

Good.

I will not burden you with the tortured logic the squeamish Belling uses to reject the other right wing candidates except to note it reflects the implosion of the Republican Party orchestrated by the neocons and George W. Bush.

Much of conservative America is shocked and dismayed to find their movement in shambles. The pundits claim that leaders diverted form the path of righteous conservatism.

Actually it is not all that complicated. Lie about a war or two, destroy the economy with deficit spending to finance that war, trample on basic liberties so you can unite the National Rifle  Association (NRA) with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and you have a solid formula for national disaster.

Democrats better not get too smug this fall.

If there is one political faction on the heels of the Republicans in the race towards self-destruction it is my compatriots on the left.

McCain Attacks Every Presidential Candidate Since Teddy Roosevelt

The most pithy, and pungent sound from John McCain after the Potomac primaries, is this:

"Hope, my friends is a powerful thing. I can attest to that better than many. … [But] to encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.

Read it. Read it over and again.

McCain embraces hope.

He knows the meaning of hope, undoubtedly from his horrid confinement in a barbaric Vietnamese prisoner of war camp.

The setup complete, he launches into the heart of his argument. Obama has only the rhetoric, only the offer of hope and a better future. Preferable to Obama's rhetoric is the sound and proven ideas, clearly the one's that he, McCain, espouses.

Wrong.

I am willing to try an untested vision of America, based on justice, fairness and understanding rather than a policy that dragged us into two disastrous wars within two generations, destroyed public education, and allowed corporations to loot and pillage, leaving millions of pensioners penniless.

Those wars were not just military disasters. They have taken our nation off course, strangled our liberties and driven much of the rest of the world into the arms of fanatics and terrorists who do not know our goodness.

Every candidate for president since Teddy Roosevelt has offered hope. Some were charlatans, like Harding, with nothing more that a wad of lobbyists' dollars hidden between their legs. Others, like Jimmy Carter, were dreamers who did not understand the character of those would collaborate with terrorists in order to gain the White House.

Some were like FDR, with the courage to believe in the vision of America held by the people who elected them.

Democratic Party Super Delegates: Super Headache in the Making

There is great interest in how super delegates are selected by the Democratic Party since there is a possibility they could determine the party's presidential nomination.

One of the better explanations as to how the super delegates came into being and how they work is Tom Curry's article, April 26, 2007  What role for Democratic 'super-delegates'? Governors, senators, state chairs, and even Bill Clinton get automatic vote

The key thing is this. There are 842 of these delegates who hold the position by virtue of being an established or retired elected political or party leader. They make up almost 40% of the delegates needed to win the nomination, or 20% of the total delegates.* That means a candidate who comes to the convention with 12% of the delegates from the primaries and the caucuses could get the nomination if that candidate got all of the super delegates.

One super delegate who is likely to vote for Hillary Clinton is Bill Clinton.

A Wisconsin super delegate voting for Barack Obama will be Governor Jim Doyle; Clinton gets the support of Representative Tammy Baldwin (Wis-2).

Some super delegates will undoubtedly cast a ballot consistent with their state's preference, particularly in a winner-take-all state.

For an ongoing list of super delegates, who they support, and the excerpts from the Democratic Party Rules that create the super delegates check out 2008 Democratic Convention Watch:

Here's a list of super delegates to the 2008 Democratic Convention that have officially announced who they plan to nominate. If you know of any others or are a super delegate please post a comment.

According to this website, various news organizations put Clinton's super delegates between 193 and 209, Obama's between 106 and 118.

By the numbers as of Wednesday, February 6, 2008:

• AP puts Obama at 765 delegates, including the supers
• AP puts Clinton at 845 delegates, including the supers
• 2025 delegates are needed to secure the nomination

The Democratic Party will have a serious problem if the convention outcome does not reflect the popular selection of delegates for the candidates.

For example, if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination based on significant support from super delegates, no amount of explaining will satisfy the young and independent voters brought into the process as reflected by the recorded primary turnout, inspired by the spirited race between herself and Barack Obama.

*thanks for the comments pointing out the error in the original post.

So Much for Super Tuesday: Candidates go 'Forward' to Wisconsin

As noted yesterday, Super: Tuesday, Delegates, Obama, and Clinton, "To win without a convention show-down, Hillary Clinton has to land a knockout blow tonight. With momentum and time on his side, Obama is only getting stronger."

Super Tuesday came and went.  Nothing was decided. Clinton won the big states, Obama failed to pick off either Massachusetts or California. Obama kept his momentum, and Clinton established her expected lead.

The New York Times reported this morning, For Candidates, Lighter Schedules Ahead After a Frenzied Day of Voting

WASHINGTON — Where to now?...

...Voters in Wisconsin, with 92 Democratic delegates, go to the polls on Feb. 19, the same day the party holds caucuses in Hawaii, where Mr. Obama grew up. Wisconsin has proved pivotal in past Democratic primary battles, helping John F. Kennedy win the 1960 nomination and Michael S. Dukakis do so in 1988. Mr. Obama has already assigned several of his top ground operatives to Wisconsin, aides said...

Over the next four weeks the Democratic candidates will focus on the big state primaries held March 4 in Ohio and Texas, with Rhode Island and Vermont, will produce 534 delegates. But in between, there will be a short period where the focus will be on Wisconsin.

Go Bucky.

The cynics who wanted the Wisconsin primary moved up were wrong. We will get our chance in the sun (if it ever stops snowing).

February 19 will produce the most interesting Wisconsin primary since 1968, when the weekend before the votes were cast, Lyndon Johnson withdrew in the face of a pending debacle. In the meantime, the national press corps will celebrate the Dairy State for two weeks as they descend on the cow pastures and the court houses, the university campuses and the small town grills.

Some candidates will kiss babies; the smart ones will pose for photos with cheeseheads.

Super: Tuesday, Delegates, Obama, and Clinton

Update: February 6, 2008: So Much for Super Tuesday: Candidates go 'Forward' to Wisconsin

As super Tuesday draws to a close the nation wonders if the primary season will abruptly end or if the nomination process for the Democrats will extend through the remaining primaries all the way to the convention.

The legacy of the George McGovern campaign in 1972 and the creation of the 842 unpledged super-delegates may be the undoing of Barack Obama.

To win without a convention show-down, Hillary Clinton has to land a knockout blow tonight. With momentum and time on his side, Obama is only getting stronger.

The more people meet Hillary Clinton, the more things stay the same. The more people meet Barack Obama, the more they support the Illinois Senator.

The problem for Obama is that, short of his own majority entering the convention, he may lose the nomination.

And that is the problem for the Democratic Party. If the convention determines the outcome, the old guard established politicans who hold most of the 842 super-delegate seats are in a bind.

They can do what what was expected of them and go with Hillary Clinton and offend the new energized voters or they can risk alienating established, powerful forces and nominate new leadership.

To win, Obama will have to enter the convention only two hundred votes short of the nomination.

Selecting the Democratic Presidential Nominee: Obama

In my lifetime there were two candidates who offered real change. One was George McGovern and the other Bobby Kennedy. Neither was electable. One's campaign was cut down by the felonious Nixon administration; the other by an assassin's bullet.

There are four qualities or characteristics that we examine in selecting a presidential nominee.  They are positions on the issues, personality-trust, electability, and propensity to advance fundamental change.

We rarely get past the first two qualities. For each voter, the candidate's positions on critical issues such as choice, war, support of public education, and free speech rule out the vast majority of candidates. Left with only two or three serious contenders, the issue of personality takes hold. And then we move on to the hypothetical match-ups where the pundits speculate as to which candidates do best against the various nominees of the opposing party.

Consequently, it is unusual to view a candidate through the prism of fundamental change.

Few candidates offer themselves up as advocates of change. When they do, it is not as a catalyst for progress but as part of a rant against the bureaucracy, usually the pledge to bring change to Washington.

Governors from both parties, like Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan promised change. Neither weakened the grip of the lobbyists, neither ended corporate welfare, neither advanced the cause of social and economic justice, though Carter tried.

Barack Obama provides the opportunity for the Democrats to nominate a candidate who is sound on the issues, has the personality and public trust to win, and is promises fundamental change. On issues from war to poverty, economic development to the environment, Obama knows the priorities.

Most importantly his campaign statements and his performance as a United States Senator demonstrates he appreciates the narrow path a president must navigate to stand on principle and to compromise when required.

There is no one thing that Obama has said or done that leads me to the conclusion that he is to be trusted in uncharted waters, but it is the compilation of his record.

• He was prepared to stand before popular sentiment in 2002 and 2003 and question the foundations for the war in Iraq.
• He understands that to combat poverty, we need to enhance the family and advance public education. 
• He appreciates the problems created by NAFTA and that we need to make American products competitive abroad while we protect jobs in this country.
• He recognized the mistake made by Congress in compromising our civil rights and civil liberties in the overzealous attempt to ferret out terrorists.

i admire his appreciation for liberties and rights, his determination to get to the root of poverty, and his commitment to economic justice.

Most impressive was his judgment in questioning the premise of the Iraq war.  He performed far better than the so-called more experienced and mature leaders who should have known better. That is why I trust him with our future.