Whose Ox is Gored?

The folks down I-95 at Fred2Blue are complaining about how “gerrymandered” Virginia is.

Gerrymandering is an age old tradition. In fact, as I noted some time back the first partisan apportionment happened right here in Virginia. It is a practice as the “spoils system” as propounded by Andrew Jackson, and when a party is swept to power they hack at the other guys districts with gusto, and expect and accept the same in return.

I think we need non-partisan apportionment, and I think mid-decade apportionments should be done away with.. Until that happens, we have to make do with what we have.

But I confess to more than a bit of cynicism on this point…in fact, this report smells just a tad of Claude Rains in “Capablanca” professing to be shocked gambling is going on in Rick’s American Cafe…and then accepts his gambling winnings from the croupier.

I would be more impressed by this report and indignation if:

**The supporting report had not come out of the DLC, a Democratic support group;
**The report were not full of “might” and “if” and “perhaps” type wiggle words estimating how many more voters would vote if different redistricting methods were used.
**Tucked away in a note on page 16 the paper itself said “placement on this list should not be confused with a ranking of which states maintain systems most prone to creating non-competitive districts”…so that fourth worst stat Fred2Blue throws around about Virginia may not be all it is cracked up to be.
**I didn’t recall how in 1990 the Virginia Democracy redistricted the House so that 14 GOP incumbents were redistricted into seven house districts, and completely reshaped the old Virginia 7 to knock out a GOP incumbent.
**I didn’t recall how the Senate Democratic leadership shot down legislation in the 2008 session that would create bi- or non- partisan redistricting…presumably because they want to guarantee themselves a big chair at the table in 2010.

This is a game that has been going on for over two hundred years, and it isn’t going away any time soon…and if the DLC thinks it is a problem, then maybe they should get get guys like Dick Saslaw to send up legislation that would change the way things are done.

Tim Kaine: Still just an Old School Marm…with Ambition

In the midst of the the 2007 Virginia General Assembly session I blogged about our Governor, Tim Kaine, and his transportation failures. I suggested that while he tried to portray himself as a fearless samurai, he was really something else:

But the GOP [offered a plan], and the Democrats did not. Now Governor Kaine [unhappy with the plan] is running around like an old time school marm who gives an assignment, gives the students freedom to complete the assignment as they see fit, and then pitches a hissy fit when things are not done as she envisioned it being done…At a time when we need leadership, we instead get an old school marm…bitter that she is not more appreciated, tolerated only because of the office held, and never to be remembered fondly or respectfully.

Here we are now sixteen months later, and nothing has changed…except Kaine has dug himself an even deeper hole.

The legislature is in special session to discuss transportation funding. By all accounts, there are multiple parties involved-there is the House of Delegates, a couple of different factions in the state Senate, and then there is TheGov, who apparently is having trouble getting his own plans introduced.

While the GOP want a variation of the 2007 plan, and Dick “I Do It My Way” Saslaw has his own plan to introduce focusing on increases in the gas tax, titling fees, etc., Governor Kaine just wants a billion dollar tax increase. While it is a bit much to say he has been abandoned by his allies, clearly there is a stench about TheGov caused by his interference in the Va-11 primary, his willingness to intervene in capital murder cases, and his regressive tax schemes.

Unfortunately, while the public wants improvements the two parties, and our leadership deficient governor, do not get the picture.

Many times I have written that no plan will go through until the state shows that everything has been done to wring all possible value from the funds currently being spent on transportation. Nothing special, some Ross Perot charts should do the trick. Instead, the new plans-and especially the governor’s plan-draws comments like this:

I don’t suppport any tax increases until I see that they are using what they have efficiently. I see 4 state trucks and 10 workers at a work site and one person (if that) working. I see good roads repaved and bad roads ignored. They take two weeks to do a two day job. A major overhaul of VDOT needs to be done before they get another dime.

No one is going to jump up for new taxes until they are convinced the most bang is beign gotten for the current buck.

But it may be that Governor Kaine doesn’t want a solution. Some have suggested that he is more interested in scoring political points and putting the GOP behind the electoral eight ball than in making progress.

That may be…but if he is really thinking that, he forgets two things:

1. Come the next state election, folks are going to remember that the Democrats held the governor’s mansion and one house of the legislature and couldn’t agree on a plan…as opposed to their previous strategy of not offering a plan and watching the GOP implode. This proposition is not likely to be as politically strong for Kaine; and
2. His not-so-vague longings for a place in the Obama administration are hurt with every misstep he takes. Obama has to be aware that Kaine became governor less on his own merits than on the strengths and failures of others. Couple that with a feckless and ineffectual term as governor, no matter how personally likeable you might be, and suddenly Kaine needs a win to stay in the spotlight; and
3. There is that little matter of a GOP Lt. Governor who will become governor of Virginia if Kaine gets an admin sinecure. Is TheGov’s presence such an overwhelming presence that Obama would turn over the Virginia governor’s mansion to the other party just to bring “Timmy!” on board?

All in all, I doubt it…

Bottom line, things have not changed since February 2007. Kaine is still the old school marm I described in Februrary 2007, only now he has ambition. Unfortunately, that ambition ain’t getting him anywhere.

The ironic part of this is that the advice he needs has been sitting there, waiting to be absorbed, and it is in an essay about his father-in-law.

The Governor’s of Virginia 1860-1978 is a book published in 1982 and offers short bios on the Virginia governors elected or selected from 1860-1973, concluding with Mills Godwin’s second term. Included is an essay by J. Harvie Wilkinson on Governor Lynwood Holton. Wilkinson summarizes Holton’s career-an administrative triumph and a political disaster-by saying that in to move on in politics it is not enough simply to govern well, one must also mind the store politically.

Holton did not do this, and his aspirations to be tapped as VP in 1972 and then to get the GOP Senate nod in 1978 all came to naught. It was another variation on what my father has said about politics being about how well you do two things…”Gettin’ it and doin’ it”.

Apparently TheGov has not learned from the example of his father-in-law…and if he continues on this path he will find his place in history along with those cold, gray men who achieved high office through the efforts of others, and was unable to make things happen for themselves in either the statute books or at the ballot box.

Obama, Financing, and Walking the Talk

How good it feels to be ahead of the power curve!

Many months ago I speculated that Barack Obama would bail on his promise to use public funding of his campaign. Now the other shoe has fallen. Obama has officially rejected down public financing despite his previous promise to use it if his opponent accepted…which John McCain did long ago.

This and other Obama actions continue to indicate his willingness to talk it up, but not to walk it out.

Some suggest that Obama has always viewed the financing question as a way to get press. I speculated back when as to the motivation for making the promise in the first place-a cheap way to get good publicity.

Now it would be one thing if he simply reneged on a promise and moved on-politicians do that all the time. He is doing this because he has created a fundraising juggernaut and sees an advantage in using private financing. No problem there…happens all the time.

However, Obama wants us to believe this is not a practical political decision, but instead an attempt to fix a broken system. He wants us to believe his decicion is one of principle, and not practicality.

Among others, the WaPO ain’t buying it:

But given Mr. Obama’s earlier pledge to “aggressively pursue” an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing, his effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take.

Things clearly have changed since Obama filed this with the FEC to keep the public option open:

“Congress concluded some thirty years ago that the public funding alternative . . . would serve core purposes in the public interest: limiting the escalation of campaign spending and the associated pressures on candidates to raise, at the expense of time devoted to public dialogue, ever vaster sums of money.”

Apparently his devotion to this ideal is present-when it benefits him.

As the WaPo concluded:

Fine. Politicians do what politicians need to do. But they ought to spare us the self-congratulatory back-patting while they’re doing it.

This whole process is indicative of the Obama modus operandi.

An example-Obama has made much of his desire for open communication and a new bi partisan approach to government. But as recently recounted when asked “Have you ever worked across the aisle in such a way that entailed a political risk for yourself?”, Obama replied-at great length:

“Well, look, when I was doing ethics reform legislation, for example, that wasn’t popular with Democrats or Republicans. So any time that you actually try to get something done in Washington, it entails some political risks. But I think the basic principle which you pointed out is that I have consistently said, when it comes to solving problems, like nuclear proliferation or reducing the influence of lobbyists in Washington, that I don’t approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective.”

Short Answer: “No, I haven’t”

I understand why Obama ran for president this year…a chance came his way, and he didn’t have a record in office that could be used against him.  Wait another cycle or two and his record gets used against him-just ask John Kerry.

However, it becomes clearer and clearer that while Obama uses his marvelous oratorical talents to talk of a new day in American politics, the reality is too often there is little beef behind the image. For all his talk of the ideal of public financing, he runs from it when it is to his advantage to do so. Obama talks of the ideal of post-partisanship his presidency will lead to, but can show almost no real belief in the idea in his Senate activities.

In 1984 Walter Mondale asked Gary Hart “Where’s the Beef?” If Obama keeps this up, I think folks will range far beyond this simple observation. Instead, they are going to look at his comments and his record, and note the variations. I doubt they are going to view these changes as sincere changes found on the road to Damascus. Instead, they may well think they are listening to a man who is willing to talk the talk, but not to walk the walk, and will do or say anything to get elected.

So much for the new politics…

Life’s Rich Pageantry, Part 2-Kaine snubs Byrne

Today’s WaPo announced that TheGov endorsed ChairGer in the race for he Democratic nomination for the Va 11 House seat. In doing so, he snubbed his 2005 running mate LB3, also a candidate for said nomination.

When I read that, I thought, “OH, the gang at RK ain’t going to be happy about this.”

Well…when I am right, I am right. A piece of the RK reaction to the even the possibility of Kaine endorsing Connolly:

…if this is true, it’s very disturbing news. Whether it’s bad judgment on Kaine’s part or merely a political payback, it’s doing the people of the 11th a disservice by endorsing the wrong candidate.

This is the mild conclusion to the piece, which goes into great detail why Kaine is wrong to back Connolly.

Meanwhile, over at NLS Ben takes the high road, simply referring to the endorsement as “Governor Kaine’s Blood Drenched Hands.”

I do find it interesting that Kaine has decided to endorse in this race, while he has not in the Va-10 contest nor did he in last year’s senate primary in Richmond between Donald McEachin and Benjamin Lambert. In fact, given Kaine’s constant droning about his time as a missionary, his commitment to liberal ideas, opposition to the death penalty, etc., it would seem to me that Leslie Byrne is a more reasonable choice for him to endorse, except…

…Nothing drives Kaine more than politics. He has always kept himself camouflaged, beginning with his 2005 campaign pledge to not raise taxes and then recanting on that idea before he was even sworn into office. The only reason I can think of for TheGov’s endorsement is that he thinks ChairGer has the best chance to win the general, and I have to wonder if he thinks he needs to endorse to help push ChairGer over the finish line.

But it is the RK reaction and the irony of the situation that strikes me. While I generally disagree with Lowell and the RK gang (and even was called a mouth breather over there in a comment), I recognize and admire the driving energy and devotion to their causes and candidates. They were in the front row pushing Tim Kaine and political blogging in Virginia in 2005, led the charge for Jim Webb in 2006, and served as a central information point for the statehouse races in 2007.

They laid it out heart and soul for Tim Kaine in 2005-their blog is even named for him. To have him come back around and to get into the Va-11 race for a candidate they so clearly despise must be heartbreaking…although I do not anticipate them changing the name of their blog to “RaisingByrne”.

On that count I do feel sorry for them today, but I guess that is part of Politics…yesterday’s allies are today’s misguided idiots.

Life’s Rich Pageantry strikes again!

Will Obama and Casey Break the Rules in PA?

Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania will today endorse Barack Obama. Obama nation is thrilled about this.

My question-Will they destroy a truism in doing so?

In all walks of life there are aphorisms, truisms, and accepted wisdom held to be true due to long experience-to the point where they are considered something more than a rule but less than a law. But rules are meant to be broken.

One rule in politics is that a US Senator cannot be elected president-too much time in Washington, too many procedural votes to tie them up, etc. In fact, that is likely one reason that Obama ran this year instead of waiting.

Well, there are three fighters left in the ring, and all have U.S. Senator in front of their names. One rule down.

Another rule concerns the value of the endorsement of a U.S. Senator. While it is better to have folks with you than against you, history has shown time and again that typically it is the governor who has more political control than the US Senators. There are some exceptions (the Byrd Machine being one), but numerous candidacies from Dick Russell to Ed Muskie and on to the present have assumed that support of US Senators gave them great chances in a given state, only to find that a governor the candidate didn’t have in his camp had already wired the state for the opposition.

So, will Obama and Casey break the rule that says that Governor’s have more pull within a state than a US Senator does?

There may be another rule in play, analogous to that in the Princess Bride of “don’t get involved in land war in Asia!”…and that rule is “Presidential contenders should stay out of a state party’s internal politics”

Ed Rendell, Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania, has long been in Hillary’s corner. His support is one of the reasons Pennyslvania has been considered part of the Clinton Firewall. I do wonder about the whole “Casey Democrats” thing, though…I thought they were called “Casey Democrats” because of Senator Casey’s father, a former Governor of Pennsylvania, for whom Ed Rendell was the natural successor. Moreover, there are aspects to this effort as being more than just a fight between Obama and Clinton…it also has aspects of being a backyard throwdown between PA’s two biggest Dems to see just who is the biggest kid in the playground.

Rendell defeated Casey for the Democratic nod for governor in 2002, and was reelected in 2006. He will have been out of office for two years when Casey comes up for reelection. I have to wonder how much of the Casey endorsement is an effort of sorts to head off a Rendell candidacy in 2012.

Just another twist and turn to an already interesting year…

Seven Weeks of Purgatory for Hillary and Obama

When Nolan Richardson led the Arkansas Razorbacks to the 1994 NCAA hoops title, he called their tight pressure defense “Forty Minutes of Hell”.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the Democrats are in the midst of another unique time period, which I think of as “Seven Weeks of Purgatory.”

The term is defined in part as “any condition or place of temporary punishment, suffering, expiation, or the like. “

Democratic candidates will now have seven weeks to castigate, analyze, blame, or otherwise carry on about a nominating process that is far from over and has revealed more chinks in the process and the candidates than was recognized when the journey began. Staffers will be blamed and/or pardoned, tactics explained away or newly embraced, and candidate tactics and party selection processes will be condemned, praised, pardoned, or redeemed.  Oh, and of course, the temporary suffering of Hillary and Obama as punishment for not fighting a schedule that allows for such a huge delay in the process.

I have been puzzled by much of the primary/caucus schedule this year.  After zipping through half of the state nomination exercises faster than Dan Snyder goes through coaches, there is now an interregnum of seven weeks between the March 5 TX/OH showdown and the Pennsylvania primary. 

Seven weeks with an occasional small state caucus or primary,  but without the knock-out punch that can end it all one way or another. 

Seven weeks where putative GOP nominee John McCain can save resources and mend fences without having to campaign state to state.

Seven weeks where the Democrats can hem, haw, palaver, and stew about a variety of things, including but not limited to:

What to do with Florida and Michigan?

Howard Dean is not about to let the original results stand, but the states need to be included to help pick a nominee. If you take their delegations out of the equation but count their delegate votes toward the number needed to win, the winner will need 54% or so of the vote…which is not likely this year.  Hillary will want another primary, but Obama will want caucuses.

What is the proper role of the super delegates?

The debate continues on super delegates…are they supposed to be completely independent voters, or should they reflect the will evidenced by their states in the primaries/caucuses.  Clearly they were created as far back as 1976 as independent voters, but in a year where the establishment candidate is taking on water opinions are changing.

Are primaries or caucuses better indicative of what will make a general election winner? 

Is the ability to win a primary closer to what it takes to win a general election, or is the ability to fire folks up to come out late and stay long at a caucus a better indicator that a candidate has the stuff to win in November?

Seven weeks is a long time, and I have a hunch this hiatus will not just help John McCain, it will hurt Barack Obama.

Obama’s appeal has been at a very high, inspirational level.  Where the Clinton campaign has worked policy and legislative technique, Obama has talked hope and unity.  The problem is that at some point he has to come back to ground and reveal the policies and techniques that will bind and bolster this country.

I am somewhat reminded of the Hoot in last year’s state Senate election, saying that had she been in the senate instead of Cooch she would have made a difference by being more bipartisan-then neglecting to mention how she would accomplish this.

As Charles Krauthammer writes today, to date Obama’s rhetoric of unity and working together doesn’t quite match up to his record:

The Obama campaign has sent journalists eight pages of examples of his reaching across the aisle in the Senate. I am not the only one to note, however, that these are small-bore items of almost no controversy — more help for war veterans, reducing loose nukes in the former Soviet Union, fighting avian flu and the like. Bipartisan support for apple pie is hardly a profile in courage.

Then we get to the tough stuff..

On the difficult compromises that required the political courage to challenge one’s own political constituency, Obama flinched: the “Gang of 14″ compromise on judicial appointments, the immigration compromise to which Obama tried to append union-backed killer amendments and, just last month, the compromise on warrantless eavesdropping that garnered 68 votes in the Senate. But not Obama’s.

To date, Hillary C has the best of all worlds…she is well vetted, and Obama refuses to take her to task on much of that record, much to the dismay of some of his supporters. Hillary has no such scruples, and will continue to launch surgical strikes at Obama.

I think the upcoming seven weeks will help cast this election as a doppleganger for the Hart-Mondale struggle in 1984, and I don’t know that helps Obama. Obama will continue to take the high road, Hillary will continue to work the process and super delegates. The MSM will start to shy away from the perception that it is in the bag for Obama, and get overly tough with him in a reflexive backlash. If he goes negative, it will either rebound as being contrary to the picture he has built up OR it will be considered acceptable but may be too late.

Or not…only time will tell…

Yes, the “Seven Weeks of Purgatory” are upon us.  With all the potential for negative advertising and negative commentary and possibilities for the smallest errors to wet the political landscape in flames, the Democrats have to worried about what effect this delay in the nominating process will mean.

Meanwhile, the GOP, like Willy Wonka watching the German boy get stuck in the tube, watches and thinks “The suspense is terrible…I hope it’ll last.”

C-SPAN Radio and the Tex/OH Aftermath-Obama Bitterness

Normally I start each day with a hot breakfast I prepare and reading the WaPo, which allows me to face the threat of heartburn from multiple directions.  I clean my dishes, fill my thermos, and head to work and use the time on the road to cogitate and ruminate over whatever is on my mind.

On the day after an election, things are different.  I check in to C-SPAN radio to at best get a different perspective and at worst to be entertained by the wailing of the banshees.

Today was no exception.  The Obama-ites are apparently quite miffed with Hillary.  Some comments I heard included:

From a female caller ( won’t attempt to guess the ethnicity of those who phoned in):

“Being classy and trying to lift campaign dialogue just doesn’t sell…people value ignorance and arrogance, and that’s why people voted for Hillary Clinton.  People say she is a hero, but she isn’t…she’s just gumming up the works and should go away.”

Hmmmm…I guess she likes a little bitter with her coffee

A male caller:

“Hillary Clinton is through.  She cannot win.  She should do the right thing and drop out and go back to New York and revive her future political career.  Maybe she can be something in the Obama cabinet.”

While I loved the energy, I was taken by the fact that the WaPo reported this AM that both Hillary and Obama need to win 60% of the delegates yet to be selected to win the nomination…so I guess neither one needs to be dropping out quite yet.  I really loved the idea that HRC can revive her career.  Apparently the caller hasn’t considered that if she loses the nomination to Obama and he wins in November, then she will be 68 when she next reasonably gets a shot at the democratic nod.

Another male caller:

“Hillary is a fraud, she is not for change.  If she wins the nomination, I am going to vote for McCain.”

That one left me speechless…

The calls continued in this type of stream of conscious angry moment degree.  Clearly there must be a lot of Obama backers who don’t see why Hillary doesn’t drop out.  I hate to disappoint them, but that ain’t happening until after Pennsylvania.

Speed surfing around the tube last night it became clear that the Democratic contest is far from over, and that this nomination might well end up pivoting on two questions:

a) What is the proper role of Super Delegates?  Should they vote as they see fit, or are should they vote as their state voted?

b) Florida and Michigan.  Change direction and let them partially or completely in? Stand fast, do not allow the delegates as selected to be seated?  Allow a do over?  This may be the critical question.  Remember, the rules have stricken Michigan or Florida of their votes for holding their primaries too early, they have simply said we will not seat delegates chosen in those premature primaries…and that places an unusual strain on the process.  It takes 2025 delegates to get the Democratic nod, but that includes the pledged delegate votes from MI/FL…which means that the winner currently has to win 54% of the pledged or super Delegate votes available.

All I know is that this shindig is far from over…and that if this race makes it as far as the North Carolina primary, I bet John Edwards becomes the kingmaker.

Barack Obama-Blatant Opportunist or Man of Principle?

Last year US Senator Barack Obama took a bold step to set himself aside from his opponents for the Democratic nomination.  Poorly funded in comparison to his opponents, Obama said he would acccept public funding of his presidential campaign if he got the nomination.  Also in money trouble due to early missteps, John McCain also said he would accept public funding.

How things change!  Many months later Obama is on the cusp of getting the Democratic nod and is awash in cash.  Now he is actively trying to figure out how to go back on his promise.

This back and fill shouldn’t surprise anyone.  This is the same man who on CNN talked of how superdelegate votes should absolutely reflect their state delegations.  But when pointed out that would mean Ted Kennedy would be voting for Hillary Clinton for the nomination, Obama started to hem and haw and talk of the need for “discussion and change.”

So now we get to see how much of Barack Obama is based in principle and how much in opportunism. Will he keep his word, or let his word get washed away in a flow of cash?

So now we get to see if the man who claims he will move us to a higher moral level of political discourse will go back on his word.

I don’t think he should.  He made the choice, and told the public what he would do.  There is nothing illegal with his now refusing public funding, nor is it immoral…I think it is more than a little unethical, I think it is wrong, and I think it reeks of the political subterfuge and opportunism in the political environment that Obama claims he will move to eliminate and “change”.

Perhaps I am simply cynical, but what makes this more interesting is the possibility that the Obama never really thought it would come to this. I can just imagine the following conversation among his advisors …

Advisor 1-”We are stagnant…we need to do something bold”
Advisor 2-” I got it! Have the Senator announce that if nominated he will accept public funding of his campaign and challenge the other candidates to do the same!”
Advisor 3-”Great idea! If they do accept, we are no worse off. If they don’t, we become the campaign of principle!”
Advisor 2-”Absolutely! Let’s take this to the Senator and see if he will sign off?”
Advisor 1-”Hold on…what if we actually get the nomination? Then we will be stuck with public financing…”
Advisor 3-”Oh,come on! This is for a tactical advantage…the only GOP guy who can use this against us is John McCain, and there is no way he will be the nominee!” Nope, no one is going to remember this next Spring!”

And they would probably have been right…except John McCain will be the GOP nominee.

Now Barack is stuck…either he sticks to his guns and does as he proposed, OR he ends up getting to answer the question, “Do, were you being an opportunist now or back then?”

The folks I feel sorry for are those who have consumed the Obama Kool-Aid.  They are touting their guy as the last honest man in American politics, and if he says I am going to refuse public funding they will find some way to rationalize the decision.  They may say it is necessary to get out of Iraq, it is OK because otherwise the GOP will find some “Rovian” tactic to win the election, that Obama is the better man so it is OK “just this once” to go back on his word.

You know they will, and that is where the real tragedy lies.  This matter goes beyond the the character of Barack Obama, and the question is he an opportunist or is he principled.  We know from his take on the Super-delegates that he has a flexible morality…we just don’t know how flexible.  But if he now refuses public funding after saying he would accept it if nominated, then he will also be climbing the greasy pole on the backs and shoulders of thousands of supporters who will be willing to subvert their innate sense of what is right just so Obama fulfill his ambition.

Senator O, what’s it going to be?

Super Delegate Whining

The last few weeks have revealed a variety of Democrats in print, on tv, and in blogs go on about the terrible possibility that the Automatic Delegates (a/k/a Super Delegates) to the Democratic Convention might decide who the nominee is.

I find this whining to be anywhere from mildly annoying to extremely funny. Let’s face it…all these folks are upset and whining because the Super Delegates may do exactly what they were created to do. They exist because historically the party professionals on both sides of the aisle fear the spontaneous will of the non-professional class.

This is not a new condition. In fact, if you go back to 1884 you will find Speaker of the House Thomas Reed grousing because the GOP convention nominated James G. Blaine as their standard bearer.  Reed was convinced that the somewhat loose morality Blaine had applied to his public career would be poison in a national election regardless of how much people liked him.  When challenged to be more enthusiastic about the nominee, Reed replied, “We elected officials don’t worry about personality…we only care about little things like actually winning the election.”

The current class of Democratic Super Delegates has its origins in the 1972 Democratic convention, where delegation after delegation tossed out elected officials and instead chose “cause advocates”.  The whole exercise is capably described by Hunter Thompson in his marvelous book Fear and Loathing: on the Campaign Trail 1972, especially when the convention-in a full fledged attempt to find political purity-seated the delegation led by young Jesse Jackson and tossed out the one led by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley.

In the wake of the Nixon-McGovern debacle, the Democrats instituted new rules to create the “Super Delegate” class so that the elected tier of the office would not be disenfranchised in selecting the party nominee.  The assumption was that the Super Delegates could be counted on to put the brakes on some runaway effort for a popular candidate who through some mass hysteria or popularity would sweep the elected delegates but lose in the general election.

That is why they were created…and given carte blanche as to who to vote for.  That is why the Super Delegates are not under the Democratic Party by-laws not required to reflect the elected delegate result in their state, either individually or proportionally.  And that is how they were empowered this year.

But now the institutional candidate is running behind in the elected delegate totals, and with all the backbone of a chocolate eclair no one is defending their right to vote as they were created to vote.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi does the sidestep when asked her take on the Super Delegates:

These superdelegates are all part of their state delegation, so that state will speak,” Pelosi said. The superdelegates “work out their preference, working with the people of their state.”

Her assertion is silly. The Super Delegates have always been designed to vote as they see fit. They have no restrictions, but no one is willing to say so. Instead they engage in moralizing about what the SD should do, and how failing to vote with their states will jeopardize the party.

Amazing…the Super Delegate rules have been in place for over a generation, and only now is there suddenly concern about their independence.

Of course, part of the problem is the front end loading of the primaries…there has never been so much pressure for the Super Delegates to commit this early in the past because the primaries did not happen so early. It seems like every time the Democrats go and change their rules, there are unintended consequences…and never in a way that makes people happy.

I suggest that if the Democrats think so highly of the men and women who qualify as Super Delegates to elect them to high office, then these same people should be trusted to vote their will at the convention. That is the way the rules are written. If you want to change the rules, fine. But don’t go whining about the Super Delegates doing exactly what they were created to do.

You see, in the end these folks are going to vote in the way that best ensures their own electoral survival…so please stop the whining and turn your attention to the whole matter of Florida and Michigan, which is going to be a credentials fight for the ages.

Obama and Hillary should look to Eisenhower for “Fair Play”

As I got ready for church this AM I caught the talking heads keep using terms like “fair play” and “right thing”.  The more they talked the more I realized that potentially the key lesson to who wins the Democratic nod lies in who can emulate Dwight Eisenhower.

Both Clinton and Obama hava unusual delegate problems.  Hillary is in the lead because she has a large edge in democratic “superdelegates”, people like past presidents, VP, sitting governors, senators, congressmen, etc.  Obama argues that superdelegates should vote according to the primary/convention process in their state…which means that potentially a lot of superdelegates who are with Hillary would shift to Obama.  Interestingly, this would compel Ted Kennedy to vote for Hillary Clinton for the nomination.

Hillary, on the other hand won in both Michigan and Florida.  Both states voted according to scheduling by the resepective state legislatures and not by the state party.  However, the dates were in advance of Super Tuesday, and did not have the exemption that South Carolina had-with the result that the states delegates to the Democratic National Convention will not be counted.

Both candidates have rules they want overturned or implemented.  I suggest they look back to 1952 and emulate the Dwight Eisenhower campaign.

In 1952 Eisenhower was running against Ohio US Senator Robert Taft for the nomination.  Taft was the heavy favorite of the conservative wing of the party.  This was especially true in the South, where the conservatives loved Taft but had kept the GOP small so as to maximize their share of the spoils if the GOP won the election.

They did not count on great up-swells of support for Eisenhower throughout the South, and some extremely capable organizers who came to the for to nominate the general.  In state after state old guard support for Taft allowed delegates to be seated through chicanery and dishonesty.

GOP rules allowed the submitted delegations to vote until the credentials report was approved.  Contested delegates would potentially be allowed to vote on their own legitimacy, which would lead to a raft of pro-Taft delegates being selected and handing him the nomination.

The Eisenhower campaign challenged the credentials of several delegations and produced proof of their dishonesty.  Next came a motion that overturned party rules and disallowed contested delegates to vote on their own seating.  This was called the “Fair Play” motion, and led to enough pro-Eisenhower delegations replacing the Taft slates sent for the by their states that by evening Eisenhower had won the nod.

Eisenhower, who was as much after power as Taft, was able to win the “Fair Play” vote because the vote itself was cast as a vote for honesty over dishonesty for-literally-fair play and an even playing field.

I think for Hillary or Obama to compel the state party to do what they each want, they have to be able to cast it as a vote not about process or procedure but about fundamental fairness.  At present, I don’t see that Obama has real good chances of doing that.

Given that the Superdelegates were created as a way to offset popular passion for a candidate who was unelectable and bring sanity to the process by giving the elected official branch of the party a voice in the selection,  it seems odd to think that the party will now-after the game has begun-turn around and say that Superdelegates had to vote to reflect the primary/caucus vote in their respective states.  The Superdelegates were chosen so they could exercise political judgement…I don’t think you can make a fair play argument that says they should not be allowed to do exactly what they were selected to do.

Hillary seems to have a better chance, even though it would amount to changing the rules after the game has started.  She can argue that it is wrong to disenfranchise entire states.  Penalize, deduct delegate votes, etc., but don’t throw them out (or the Hillary Delegates!)…especially since the state parties were simply complying with state law.  This choice seems much more likely to carry the day on Fair Play vote.

Ultimately all the above may seem like bilge, but the reporters who talk are reporting Obama and Hillary talking about challenges based on the  items discussed above.  If the credentials vote is phrased as a morality, then whoever placed the challenge will have an increased chance.

And, if neither passes?  Then we shall see…

But I think the campaigns should reread the accounts of the 1952 GOP convention, and see what needs to be added to their arguments to make them more about “fair play” and less about “I need votes”.