The Next Hurrah

Unity Pledge

by emptypockets

Watching the Democratic debate, what strikes me most is how hard Clinton and Obama need to work to find a difference between them. And when they finally do differ, their views are more often complementary than dissonant -- they agree on the problems, and just have different ideas about how best to implement a solution. What's more, I feel like there's a genuine rapport between them that's developed over the campaign.

Compare that with the fire and the fury of the Republican debates, where from the first question candidates couldn't agree on as basic a question as whether Americans are better off now than they were 8 years ago, and often came to verbal blows personally. They're a mess.

The power of the Democratic ticket is clear not only in the debates, but in the fund-raising and turnout data for the campaigns and primaries so far. Americans are excited about getting rid of Bush/Cheney and getting one of these two into office. The point I'm building up to is that I'm wondering what the effect on the campaign would be if Obama and Clinton pledged to pick the runner-up as their vice-president.

Now, as I write this post, Blitzer just asked the same question, which is enough to make me think it's a terrible idea. And the candidates of course said they wouldn't rule it out (what else could they say?). But I still want to open it for discussion. Its effect on who would continue to vote in the primaries and who the eventual nominee is are one side of it. I'm more interested in how it will effect the tone of the remaining debates and the media messages in the months leading up to the convention.

If the two jointly announced a "Unity Pledge" before Super Tuesday -- a guarantee they will both be on the ticket in some order -- would they be more effective at distancing themselves as a pair from the other side? If they don't, will they necessarily devolve into more pettiness as the convention draws nearer (assuming their delegate counts stay neck-and-neck), or can the collegial tone they've (mostly) set so far survive on its own?

FDR, some cultural history, and the sub-prime crisis.

Could President Bush Become a U.S. Citizen?

by emptypockets

As Republican politicians continue to focus on immigration, with DHS Secretary Chertoff imposing new requirements for border crossing (although about 5 million of the country's 12 million illegal immigrants crossed the border legally and then simply overstayed their visas), and Governor Mike Huckabee reversing positions to appeal to extremist nativist groups, I began to wonder: if he weren't born here, could President Bush have become a U.S. citizen?

Just imagine his visa form:

Question 1: Have you ever been arrested or convicted for any offense or crime, even though subject of a pardon, amnesty or other similar legal action? Have you ever unlawfully distributed or sold a controlled substance (drug), or been a prostitute or procurer for prostitutes?

Let's see. Arrested twice in college, for stealing a Christmas wreath and for conduct at a football game.

Arrested for drunk driving.

Possibly arrested for cocaine.

We don't know if he was directly involved in hiring male prostitute Jeff Gannon/James Guckert to pose as a reporter and issuing him a White House press credential -- so let's skip that one.

Question 3: Do you seek to enter the United States to engage in export control violations, subversive or terrorist activities, or any other unlawful purpose? Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State? Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever participated in genocide?

Hm. Another tough one. Does unlawful purpose include ordering illegal wiretaps?

Does it count as a subversive activity if you intend to bypass anti-torture laws? Is it subversive to overthrow the Constitution and ignore Congress -- and to say so in dozens of signing statements like this one (chosen at random)?

Well, let's not get bogged down in details. Just one more question though: are 80,000 Iraqi civilian deaths a genocide?

Question 6: Have you ever been afflicted with a communicable disease of public health significance or a dangerous physical or mental disorder, or ever been a drug abuser or addict?

I'll take the last part first. Cocaine again.

As to "a dangerous... mental disorder" -- do you really have to ask?

While a YES answer does not automatically signify ineligibility for a visa, if you answered YES you may be required to personally appear before a consular officer.

If only Congress held him to the same standards!

My Hypocrisy about Early Primaries

by emptypockets

Iowa is overblown. And people like me are to blame.

Consider three things: One, we don't know who got more votes in the Iowa Democratic caucus; we only know delegate percentages that don't directly reflect the popular vote. Two, Clinton came in third in delegate count by less than a third of a percent. Finally, recall that Clinton currently has ten percent more delegates than all other candidates put together. Yet, because of Iowa, she is considered to have lost her clear front-runner status and she was able to talk with a straight face in New Hampshire about her "comeback." This idea is ridiculous.

Yet it's not. Because politics is perception, and if it's perceived that she's stumbling then she will have stumbled. The expectation fulfills itself as people like me go to the polls and vote based on the way we think the results will turn out. If I think the race is down to Clinton and Obama -- and judging by every media report, it is -- then I surely will vote for one of those two. And, because Edwards failed to capture any of the earlier states, I will perceive him to be out of the running, and my perception will make it true.

And that's exactly the spot I find myself in. And it's exactly the spot that, apparently about 2,000 other progressive Edwards-leaning blog readers have found themselves in. Many of them, like me, have whined stridently about the disproportionate power of Iowa and New Hampshire -- yet, hypocritically, I would certainly consider changing my Feb. 5 vote based on the narrative that those two states created.

Short version: A vote that changes after Jan. 3 is a vote against the power of one's own state primary.

Newfound Transparency in Iowa [...someday]

by emptypockets

I'm a little slow out of the starting gate with this one, but it seems that one of the major criticisms of the Iowa Democratic caucuses -- that the actual vote totals are kept secret -- has quietly disappeared into the cornfields. The purpose of this post is to bring attention to that change, and raise the questions of how and why it came about. [Update 1/14/08, 8 am: In fact, it seems that this problem has not yet been addressed. See update at the end. Can one be slow out of the starting gate and jump the gun??]

Let me first define three terms I'll need to talk about this topic clearly:

RAW VOTE The number of caucusgoers who cast a vote for each candidate at the beginning of the caucus (in the first round of voting).

REALIGNED VOTE The number of caucusgoers who cast a vote for each candidate at the end of the caucus (after eliminating non-viable candidates, and when all is said and done).

DELEGATE COUNT The number of delegates to the state convention each candidate has earned at the end of caucus night.

Previously, the Iowa Democratic Party released only the last of these three numbers to the media. So, if you look at the CNN caucus results page for 2004, you'll see that Kerry won 1,128 State Delegates, or 38%, compared to Edwards's 957, or 32%. There's a note attached to those figures, reading

"Instead of releasing caucus vote totals, the Iowa Democratic Party releases a total indicating the number of delegates to the state convention each candidate will receive."

Why would that matter? Well, since the number of delegates per precinct is not determined by population (but by a formula involving turnout in the last two elections), it means that a candidate could, in principle, come in first in the delegate count without getting the most realigned votes. You could basically win the caucuses but lose the popular vote... and no one would ever know.

The Iowa Democratic Party has been criticized harshly for this lack of transparency. For instance, Saletan and Schiller wrote in Slate, under the header "Why you'll never know who won Iowa":

On caucus night, the Iowa Democratic Party will release the delegate count. Here's when the party will release the raw vote count and the realigned vote count: Never. The party won't compile or even record them, except as a temporary step in most precincts so that the caucus chair can determine how many delegates each candidate gets. The party doesn't want raw votes compiled and released, because it wants the caucuses to be a collaborative activity [...] but if you want to know how many voters stood up for John Edwards, you're out of luck.

That was four years ago. Just four weeks ago, the same complaint was filed by Cranberg, Strentz and Roberts in the NY Times op-ed "Iowa's Undemocratic Caucuses":

The percentage broadcast on the networks and reported in the newspapers is the candidate’s share of the 2,500 delegates the party apportions across Iowa’s 99 counties, based on Democratic voter turnout in each of the 1,784 precincts in the two most recent general elections. So, the turnout for a candidate in a precinct caucus could be huge, yet the candidate’s share of the delegate pie could be quite small — if that precinct had low voter turnout in 2004 and 2006.

The authors seem, to me, to confound the raw vote and the realigned vote in their piece, but as I read it they are saying that neither the raw nor the realigned vote is released -- only the delegate count (you might want to click the link to see if you read it the same way).

So I was all set to get royally cheesed about this lack of transparency, and Iowa's gall in insisting it maintain its first-in-the-nation status while the state Democratic party wouldn't even open its books to ensure the kind of fair vote accounting that Democrats have been campaigning for nationwide. And just as I fired up my snarkblaster to smother those poor Iowans in a deluge of withering blog-posting, I discovered a curious thing:

The 2008 vote totals are online.

That link is to an Excel file published by the Gazette on one of their caucus coverage web pages (it's the first link on that page). Admittedly, it contains only the realigned vote, not the raw vote (which would have been nice to see), but the numbers add to 250,005, so it seems they would have to be an actual head-count, not just delegate numbers. The percentages are the same as the ones reported that night, so it would seem the media quietly (and perhaps without even being aware of it) switched from reporting the Iowa delegate count in previous years to reporting the realigned vote count this year.

[Update 1/14/08, 8 am, continued: Caucus turnout was about 240,000. There are 2,500 state delegates. It appears that the Gazette may have followed the Associated Press in simpy multiplying state delegates by 100 (to eliminate fractions, I guess) which coincidentally came out pretty close to real turnout. Bottom line is, we still only know the delegate counts, not the popular vote. And you can bottle up the next paragraph and save it -- I hope -- for 2012.]

If that's the case, I want to commend Iowa Democrats on a well-deserved move toward open election reporting. I also want to suggest that they should have gotten more recognition for this move -- particularly by those who have criticized them in the past -- than they did.

But most importantly, I'd like to know how and why this change occurred, especially since it happened so quietly (to me, anyway). When did it happen? Who pushed for it? Why this year?

I've written to two of the NYT op-ed authors asking if they know what happened, and they have not yet replied (in fairness, I wrote under this pseudonym and from a yahoo address, so I could have easily been spam-filtered or otherwise screened out as a crank). This weekend, I wrote to the Gazette and the Iowa Democratic Party asking the same questions. I'll let you know if I hear anything... and, if anyone out there knows more, please post it in the comments.

Platform Committee -- Where the Issue Lovers do Battle

by Sara

Again, fair warning, what I will describe is the way the DFL in Minnesota does things.  Other states have different rules.  None the Less every state has a Platform Committee and a Platform Commission, and some sort of process to recommend policy to the National Convention.  But let's start at the top -- the Platform Committee for the 2008 Race -- how will it be done. 

First of all, the Convention Platform will be written by a committee of over 100 persons, 2 from each state and territory, one male, one female.  The  Platform Committee delegates are selected by vote from among the elected and super delegates by state.  In most cases this will reflect the outcome of the primary and caucus system, with the eventual nominee holding the majority of Platform Committee members.  Thus the nominee usually controls the content of the Platform, but outside alliances are possible. 

I'll get to the complex system we have for building our state platform later, but that said, if the state platform is adopted by the time the Platform Committee meets, they get a copy of each state's work, which is a recommendation and not something they are obliged to adopt.  All states must classify their resolutions within one of fourteen areas, things like Labor Policy, Agriculture and Food Policy, World and Foreign Affairs, Veterans Issues, Environment and Conservation -- and someone at the staff level re-organizes the state's work, highlighting areas of agreement and disagreement.  All Committee members get this product.  Ideas that come from many states have more weight than single state matters.

Then the Platform Committee holds hearings, in recent years they have traveled to various parts of the country, breaking down into sub-committees.  This is where our party interest groups get involved, they are invited to make presentations at hearings, agree or disagree with state proposals, point to legislative efforts, push priorities, and otherwise lobby the Committee to accept their language on critical issues.  For groups that want to be heard it is important to know how to lobby the committee for real hearing time.  Eventually the Committee votes, plank by plank on language and then the whole intent of the plank.  What's agreed to becomes the Majority Report to the Convention.  To have a floor fight over a plank, you have to establish strength for a minority report in the committee (I think it is 1/3rd disagreement with the plank as worded), and then to get a minority report to the floor, you have to get delegate signatures to support the minority report at a fairly high level -- in recent conventions it has been about 1500 delegates out of 4000 total.  In otherwords, our current rules predicate against minority reports and floor fights.  If a coalition exists that appears to be reaching the point where a floor fight might happen -- usually a compromise is negotiated.  Television and print reporters usually interpret a floor fight as party disorganization -- and these days, candidates try to avoid this.  But in most years, C-Span covers Platform Hearings and plank mark-up, so if you want to follow the arguments, that is where to find it.  This year I anticipate the only issue that could lead to a floor fight would be withdrawal from Iraq -- but I expect a compromise on language. 

At the state level the ordinary party activist has much greater opportunity to influence the platform, but only if one understands the process and is very organized.  In Minnesota, we introduce resolutions at the Precinct Caucus, and if they are accepted, they move up to the next level, the Legislative District Convention, which establishes a platform committee, and presents the platform to delegates as a multiple choice test, machine scored.  Delegates score the resolutions from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and those that receive a high strongly disagree score, usually end up being debated on the floor.  (why have a floor debate if everyone basicly agrees on things?)  We also have something called the ongoing platform -- resolutions passed with great strength in previous years -- that must have majority strength from opponents to come up again.  (We don't debate Abortion any more.). 

At any rate, then the Congressional Districts take up all the platforms written by counties and legislative districts within themselves, and they repeat the process.  Those resolutions where there is disagreement are likely to receive floor debate and a vote, those with strong agreement go directly to the State Platform Committee. 

Understood properly, an activist or activist groups prepare resolutions in advance, get them introduced at all precincts, and sent up the system to the Legislative District Platform, on to the CD Platform, and then on to the State Party.  You do this in all eight Congressional Districts, run them up the system, and it will likely show up in the State Platform.  These days, for instance my E-Mail includes about twice a week, proposed resolutions from the Progressive Caucus.  You can suggest edits, and they are being debated on line.  People will then take them to Precinct caucus, introduce them, and start them up the system.  (In the old days we had to go to meetings, and mimeograph the draft wording and then edit it again.)  Labor and Education are doing the same thing with virtual meetings.  The advantage thus goes to organized efforts.  In fact this is one of the primary ways movements that are outside the party can influence the party direction in policy.  Again, victory goes to those who are organized, and get their resolutions highly ranked in all Congressional District Platforms. 

At the State Platform level, all resolutions that reach the committee are examined to see whether they are essentially the same as existing parts of the ongoing platform.  If there are critical differences, the State Convention might (depending on resolution strength) be asked to modify the ongoing platform.  Those essentially similar to existing planks go on a list to be reaffirmed by the convention. 

New items then get sorted into the 14 areas of the Platform form, and then ranked by strength (came up in 7 of 8 Congressional Districts for instance).  Those highly ranked then get examined for clarity of language, (does the resolution call for money, for legislative action, etc.?)  Once final wording is established, it goes into the platform document which will be voted on using the multiple choice method, by all delegates to State Convention.  Only those resolutions that either change the ongoing platform or score in the middle (half way between Strongly Agree and Strongly Disagree) end up as Floor debate items.  When resolutions arrive advocating opposite policy, they get set up for votes as minority/majority items, with delegates required to select either A or B, and they are advised as to the strength behind each alternative.  Party Rules ended up putting a ceiling on the number of resolutions that can be accomodated in any one year (a number selected because of the technology of machine scoring -- 225).  There is also a garbage resolution at State Convention, that is removal of old resolutions in the platform made irrelevant because of Political Action.  If legislation gets past and becomes law, we remove advocacy for it from the final document. 

The State Platform Committee can also hold hearings on strongly disputed resolutions, and then offer the delegates a summary of the positions.  This happened in 1984 when I co-chaired State Platform, and we got organized resolutions on the Israeli Occupation of Palestinian Territory.  One CD sent forward a resolution to Abolish Israel (for those who want to know, the 7th, now represented by Colin Peterson, Chair of House Agriculture) three placed priority on Israeli Security, and demanded a change in the 67 borders, and three called for recognition of Arafat's PLO Government.  So we had a hearing, I got the "joy" of writing up the report to the conflicting resolutions, and in the end, nothing passed.  Two years later it came back again -- same division, same arguments, again nothing passed.  Then in 88 the supporters of Arafat changed tactics, and offered language about recognizing "Palestine Nationhood" -- and as far as I know we now have two policies -- Security for Israel and Nationhood for Palestine.  Since 88 the only thing that has changed is support first for Oslo and then support for diplomacy.  This year sounds like a new effort so I have heard.  Four years ago the party resolved after several efforts, to get out of NAFTA, and two years ago compromise language was a huge fight, and I expect it again this year.  We are also promised a fight on land use vis a vis raising corn for Ethanol, and state tax benefits attached to Ethanol production.  And yes, we probably will put in our platform strong language against any use of troops outside the US without explicit Congressional Action.  I don't know what the Gitmo resolution will look like -- but there will be one, and there is also an anti-torture resolution that also restores Habeus Corpus.  I am sure these will pass without much opposition. 

Overall, Platform obligates no DFL elected official to vote according to a resolution -- but in a limited number of cases, elected officials have suffered for going against the platform.  For after the State Convention, the Platform Committee reorganizes itself into a Commission, and turns into a lobby for the party for these resolutions, and the ongoing platform, and from time to time makes life difficult for elected officials who fail to see the resolutions as the sentiment of the party as they vote.  Officals have been known to fail to get endorsement for re-election because they have ignored the platform, to have endorsement fights, to have trouble raising money.  Any effort to seek higher office can be impacted by being in opposition to a strongly supported plank. 

In Primary States party activists don't have a similar point of entry for resolutions, and a clean way of measuring the strength of issues at all levels, and rules for actually having delegates vote on Platform.  They generally write a platform, but elect representatives from county organizations to do the job, and thus lack the means for opening the party up to the movements outside of the party that need political support to accomplish their interests.  In the end, I think bringing movements into the Platform Process through precinct caucus is healthy for the party.  I know policy on Civil Rights, Welfare, Environmental Issues, Feminist issues, Gay and Lesbian Rights and much else came into the party in this way -- and we are richer for it. 

 

Democratic Party Rules -- Market Interest

by Sara

It seems there is a growing market for an understanding of Party Rules among those carefully watching our Democratic Party Processes -- so I thought I would take up two areas of interest, the selection of Super Delegates, and our Platform Processes.  A Caution, what I know is derived from party experience in Minnesota's DFL, and while the DNC sets overall rules and guidelines, (with the ultimate sanction being having your delegates not seated at the National Convention, as Florida and Michigan face this year) rules and processes differ state by state.  In fact one should always keep in mind that there is really no such thing as a National Democratic Party -- there are 50 plus state and territorial parties that have the franchise for their state, and in turn the DNC, Democratic National Committee is a representative body elected by the State Parties.  People came to understand this in 2005 when Howard Dean was elected Chair of the DNC on the platform of strengthening the State Parties by investing in assets and skilled staff, something those who have problems with State Parties having influence have had a bit of difficulty with over the past couple of years.  Last year we all witnessed Rahm Emanual calling out Dean for not sending his DCCC committee more funds, while Dean kept putting assets and staff into states.  Understanding such power jousts is just one element in seeing the picture of our party as it currently exists.  Dean solved the problem by borrowing money that he shared with Rahm, but the assets Dean put at the State Level ended up electing more Congresspersons than Rahm's committee did.  For now, Dean 1, Rahm 0.  But one thing is sure, there will be another tournament, for power centers are always contested. 

Back in the bad old days before 1972, Party Bosses played a much more powerful role in Democratic Parties than they do today.  The elections for the ongoing officers in the party were closed systems -- old Mayor Daley would sit down with his best buddies and decide endorsements for office, state and national committee people, state and local party officers, and it would all be put on one slate, and offered as a package, with little opposition.  The McGovern-Fraser reforms ended all that, State Parties must have elections for these positions, and the process must be open to opposition, and in any sort of delegate selection, awards must be based on rules of proportionality, gender balance and affirmative action with respect to racial, religious and ethnic groups.  It was a huge change -- and one result of it was that the old Powers-that-Were actually let a number of State Parties go into Bankruptcy rather than conform to the new Rules.  A number of State Parties in the South took this route rather than allow Black elected Party Officers control the parties.  They declared bankruptcy, local courts took them into receivership, and the same good-ole boys continued to control things.  When Dean was elected one of the first things he had to do was pull the parties out of receivership, in many cases discovering that assets in warehouses were little more than 1970's typewriters and mimeo machines.  Some parts of the land like their politics one-party flavored, thus narrowing the range of who can contest for power.  Many insider fights are about such. 

Super Delegates -- how we select them

When we did the McGovern-Fraser reforms, we intentionally took any advantage elected officials had in selecting the party nominee away from them, but over the years since 1972, people gradually realized that excluding them from the ongoing business of the party weakened the party.  Delegates selected in a Presidential Year tend to be primarily about "their candidate" -- with less interest in the ongoing nurture of the party.  They are less dependable for turning out for a down ballot race, putting things aside and pitching in for a Special Election say for a State Legislative Seat.  Thus after the 1976 election, the party looked for a means to incorporate current office holders in the party structure without taking away the things that had been accomplished by the Reforms.  Thus the first super delegates were office-holders elected in special caucuses limited to office holders at specific levels, for a certain number of delegate seats that were added to the total delegations.  Thus, around the country this spring you will see State Legislators gather in caucus, and elect some assigned number of their own to Super Delegate status.  Likewise you will see mayors have a similar caucus state wide -- and there will be another caucus for County Commissioners and City Council delegates.  The rules will say how many must come from small communities, how many from metro and city governments.  Minnesota's delegation went up by about thirty delegates when this reform was instituted -- I think it was 69 to 95 but I could be wrong.  States that voted for the last Presidential Candidate get a few more slots than those who supported the opposition.  The DNC sets the number according to a formula in the National Call.  In effect, this puts our state elected leadership in position to be persuaded by any Presidential Candidate, and should that candidate win the National Election and occupy the WH, then the elected official might have leverage on appointments, or perhaps policy.  They may get phone calls returned.

There are other super delegates these days.  We give a slot to all of our Senators, our Congresspersons, and State Wide Constitutional Officers.  We also reserve a place for the State Party Chair and Co-chair (must be of opposite genders), and the elected delegates to the DNC.  In Minnesota we have four, and they are elected for four year terms at the State Convention.  Other States put Committeeperson on the Primary Ballot.  What really distinguishes Democrats from Republicans these days is that we insist these positions be filled by election -- either one held among office holders, or as a result of an election.  One cannot say that a member of Congress is not elected.  Moving in this direction over the last 30 so years has been a matter of incorporating in those likely to be concerned with the ongoing party -- between elections.  Today, about 38% of the full convention Delegates come out of these processes -- in my mind we have probably gone a little too far with it, I would personally like a rule that limited Super Delegates to 1/3rd of the total National Convention delegation.  On the other hand we also have a rule that elected officials should not run for a delegate position outside this system -- meaning we do reserve the majority of the delegate positions for candidate supporters. 

While we have already seen some super delegates make candidate commitments, (George Miller of California made one this week for Obama) many will not, they will wait to see the level of support each candidate receives in their state, and generally they follow along.  The State and Local elected officials have not been selected yet, and again it is my experience that the selection mirrors proportional support in the state as a whole, after it has been established in a caucus or primary.  But in a two person race, such as between Clinton and Obama, where the elected delegate count may stay fairly even for a time, most of the Super Delegates will hold off.  If one pulls ahead, then they will rush to join the bandwagon.  I hope that at least the State Chairs and the DNC members extract promises for keeping the Dean Reforms of the Party as the price of their endorsements.  It is one area where I have Clinton Doubts -- her Husband was not a party builder, and he did not recommend DNC chairs who cared about the State Parties.  Hillary sided with Rahm Emanual in that little joust last year over party money, and she did not support party ownership of all the new technology Dean has distributed to the state parties.  Put clearly, I want strong state parties so we can win the battle of reapportionment in 2011, and the only way to do that is to control State Legislatures and Governorships.  And I have my doubts about Obama too, what with all the talk about bi-partisan approaches.   In one sense he is of the remains of the old Chicago Machine, and while much of it is dead, some parts still live. 

I'll come back to Platform Rules in my next post.   

Article III folds. But wait! Is that a sign of life in Article I?

by Kagro X

The story so far: CIA tortures terror suspects, videotapes it, tells 9/11 Commission tapes don't exist, tells courts tapes don't exist, tapes do exist, court orders government not to destroy tapes, government destroys tapes. And now?

Judge Won't Inquire Into CIA Tapes Case
AP NewsBreak: Judge Refuses to Investigate the Destruction of CIA Interrogation Videos
By MATT APUZZO
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON

A federal judge refused on Wednesday to delve into the destruction of CIA interrogation videos, saying there was no evidence the Bush administration violated a court order and the Justice Department deserved time to conduct its own investigation.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy was a victory for the Bush administration, which had urged the courts not to wade into a politically charged issue already being investigated by the Justice Department, CIA and Congress.

The CIA has acknowledged last month that in 2005 it destroyed videos of officers using tough interrogation methods while questioning two al-Qaida suspects. Lawyers for other terrorism suspects quickly asked Kennedy to hold hearings, saying the executive branch had proved itself unreliable and could not be trusted to investigate its own potential wrongdoing.

Kennedy disagreed, ruling that attorneys hadn't "presented anything to cause this court to question whether the Department of Justice will follow the facts wherever they may lead and live up to the assurances it made to this court."

Oh yeah! Of course! The DOJ is a fantastic self-policer! Absolutely!

Questions about a Caucus: More than you ever wanted to know.

by Sara

We've had lots of questions about how a caucus works, mostly based on what various reporters in the MSM have published.  I've responded to some points in EP's earlier post and various E-Mails.  Time is to up front deal with what this "thing" is, and my speciality -- the History of Democratic Party Caucuses.  Believe me, History explains much. 

Minnesota uses essentially the same caucus system that Iowa uses, and my understanding of our process dates back to the summer of 1970, when I was doing chemotherapy for Cancer, and had a "little job" writing up summaries of written testimony sent in to what was then the McGovern Commission of the DNC, but was morphing to the McGovern-Fraser Commission, because George was going to explore running for President, and the Commission to reform the delegate selection rules had been handed off to then Congressman Don Fraser.  Most people know that the Democratic Convention of 1968 was Hell, in large measure because the Robert Kennedy candidacy and the Gene McCarthy Campaign had indicated a huge division of opinion as to where the party should stand on Vietnam -- but the rules allowed the then Party Bosses to control the delegate selection process, and thus dim if not totally still the voice of a huge constituency that wanted to be heard.  So while the convention in 1968 gave Hubert the Nomination, they gave George McGovern the booby prize -- come up with new rules to reform the delegate selection process for the Party.  George Accepted, held hearing across the country, and then handed off to Don Fraser. 

Don Fraser finished the process, the DNC adopted temporary rules in line with the new ones for the Call for the 1972 Convention, delegations were selected accordingly, and the 1972 convention adopted the new rules as the Reform Rules.  Today, with just fairly minor changes, they are the rules of the Democratic Party for Delegate Selection.  The real drama at the 1972 convention was not the adoption of the rules, rather it was a floor vote on the Credentials Report on the Illinois Delegation.  Hiz Honor Richard Daley had arrived at convention with his machine selected delegation, but another delegation, elected according to McGovern-Fraser Rules demanded the credentials -- there was a hearing, a majority and minority report, and a floor vote.  When the Daley delegation lost, and the Convention Chair told the Sergeant at Arms to escort Chicago's Mayor and his delegates off the floor, and seat the properly elected one, Reform was real.   If video were honest -- that scene is how they would date Democratic Party Reform. 

Now what were these McGovern-Fraser Reforms all about?  They authorize two modes for selecting delegates -- the caucus and the primary.  Both have the same intent.  One must understand that both are not elections, they are ways of doing party business, one of the businesses of the party is to select a delegation to the National Convention that reflects the judgment of party members as to both policy (the platform) and the favored nominees.  This is to be done in a way that is open to all significant (15% strength) organized viewpoints in the party -- it is to be proportional in part, and above all it is to be gender balanced and totally open to all racial, ethnic, and religious groups within the party.  Understood historically we were drawing a line under our history of the exclusion of Blacks from the Southern Democratic Parties, and we were opening the process up to strong movements connected to the party demanding policy change.  The requirement for Gender Balance was a response to the Feminist Movement within the Party, and the requirement for Affirmative Action pressed the matter of equity for ethnic, and age groups.  At all levels of the process of selecting delegates to all nominating conventions within the party -- these rules must apply.  Dog Catcher to President.  (Elwell wants to know if anyone elects a Dog Catcher anymore?  As the Resident Siberian Husky that is authoritarian politics that concern her.)

OK -- so the Caucus became one of the means for selecting delegates to do party business such as endorsing candidates, and electing party officers.  In 1972, Minnesota and Iowa already had forms of caucus, but they had to change given the new rules.  Iowa was the first to move, and we more or less followed their example.  Since over the years I have chaired about ten Precinct Caucuses -- and know the rules and form, I will describe in terms of what actually happens at one. 

The State Call is written by the former State Central Committee, and submitted for approval to the committee of the DNC.  It is then published by the state party, with a date and time set for caucus.  The party finds handicapped accessable places in every precinct, and publishes locations.  Precinct Chairs elected two years earlier open the caucus, and chair the proceedings, including the election of the next Chair.  The agenda is set by the Call, but can be modified by caucus attenders.   

People arrive and register.  In Minnesota we do not have party registeration, thus anyone who comes and signs the sworn or affirmed statement that they intend to vote for endorsed DFL Candidates and will be18 on election day, and a Citizen can participate.  In Iowa they have to change registeration which they can do at the registeration table.  Anyhow at a time certain you close the registeration desk, draw a line under the names on the form, and do a count.  How many residents of the Precinct have arrived and registered? You then divide that number by the number of assigned delegates for your precinct, and that tells you how many participants will be necessary to acquire one delegate to the State Legislative District Convention.  If enough attendees (equal to one delegate) ask for sub-causing (In Minnesota we call it a walking sub-caucus) then you take nominations for sub-caucuses.  Following that, you assign the areas in the room where the sub-caucuses will assemble, and you allow 15 minutes for this process.  Then you freeze the floor and use appointed tellers to count all the sub-caucuses.  Those that do not have enough for one delegate and/or do not equal 15% of the total attendence at the caucus, they are declared non-viable (in Minnesota, they don't make), and then you unfreeze the floor for 15 minutes so as to allow the participants with no caucus to join another, and for all the hard negotiations to take place.  The object is always to get the most delegates, and to end up with the "high remainder" meaning you are likely to get an extra delegate, because you have something like 1.90 strength rather than 1.45 strength.  Low remainder sub-caucuses trade for the alternate in a delegation to which they shift a few people, and high remainder sub-caucuses look at the others to protect the possibility of the extra delegate.  (This is why we take calculators to caucus).  Then you freeze the floor again, finalize the count, and the sub caucuses elect their delegates and alternates.  The point is proportional representation at the very local level, with individual voters doing what in olden days was done in smoke filled rooms.  Negotiating strength.  Of course you have to gender balance, even at the precinct level. 

After you select delegates, and then alternates -- you move on to platform resolutions.  Well organized, you can set party policy with this process. 

Precinct Delegates move on to the next level, where the whole process is repeated. Precinct Delegates can change their commitments, as our National Rules prohibit a commitment to a candidate at one level cementing one in at the next.  In Iowa they do it only by county, in Minnesota we do it by State Legislative District except in Greater Minnesota where they do it by County.  At the Legislative District Convention State Delegates are selected by the same sort of sub-caucus system, and they go to two conventions.  The Congressional District Conventions select about 2/3rds of the National Delegates, and the rest are selected at the State Convention.  At each stage sub-causeing is done if delegate strength equal to one delegate to be elected request it.  This protects proportianality.  And at all stages, gender balance must be respected.  Yes it is a little complex, but remember it was invented to abolish the Racist part of the old Democratic Party -- and it was also invented to defeat the machine bosses, and to allow voices such as Bobby Kennedy and Gene McCarthy to be viable.  I am not about to scrap it. 

Now -- let me respond to objections.  Some object because it is not a secret ballot.  Well it isn't really an election, it is about party business such as nominations and endorsements, and party positions on public policy, and I think that ought to be transparent.   In fact this is one reason I love the caucus -- you have to actually stand up and state and defend your choices and positions.  Because success at Caucus frequently depends (really depends) on pre-caucus debate and organization, it is a totally important party building process. 

Some folk don't like the math that eliminates a sub-caucus that doesn't make 15% in a precinct.  Sadly -- and I have been in some of those that were super minorities -- the point of the process is to find the fulcrum of the party strength, and that isn't done by having a ton of one vote minorities hanging on to the process.  So at all levels we give sub-caucuses that don't make the option of joining another caucus.  The negotiations to join or not join can be powerful.  (Coalitions and all that?)

In contrast the day after the New Hampshire Primary, the State Chair will have to look at the results by congressional district, and look at the candidate slates in the order they have been submitted, and balance each delegation and each congressional district by the proportional results and by gender.  Only then will the determination of the National Delegates be clear.  They will end up with a result very similar to our caucus system. 

In the caucus system we weight precincts based on a formula of past performance in several General Elections.  That is Precincts that strongly support DFL endorsed candidates get a few more delegates than those that poorly perform.  Those that get out the vote have just a little more say in the next selection than those that underperformed.  No, not one person one vote -- but both the primary and the caucus are essentially about party business.  And yea, in party business you reward the party loyal.

As I said, this is probably more than anyone really wanted to know about the Democratic Party Caucus form -- but if you have questions, just ask. 

 

Why is Hillary Crashing?

by Sara

Again, in a sense, this is a book review, the book in question being one I gave to five friends for Xmas this year.  "She's No Lady: Politics, Family and International Feminism" by Arvonne Fraser, Nodin Press, 2007.  There is a part of it I believe may help us understand how and why the plus 100 million Hillary Clinton Campaign is on the verge of Crash and Burn.  Garrison Keillor wrote the introduction, and has done a couple of hour long interviews with Arvonne on Public Radio as part of the "virtual book tour." 

So who is the Author of this political biography?  Garrison calls her "Saint Arvonne of the Church of Perpetual Responsibility" and it is a pretty good characterization.  Post College, she went to work as the Office Manager for Hubert Humphrey's Senate Campaign in 1948, from there to Office Manager of the DFL, and then she married one of HHH's staffers, Don Fraser, and quickly had six children.  Between taking care of kids, sewing all her own clothes and those of her kids, (no, she hates to cook), she mastered the art of campaign management, eventually getting Freeman elected Governor, helped elect Gene McCarthy, Organized JFK's 1960 Campaign, and got her Husband elected first to the State Senate, and in 1962, to the House of Rep.  Moved to DC, she took over managing the office on the Hill, but quickly got interested in the emerging Feminist Movement, and after organizing Hill Staffers, she moved on to help birth NOW, the National and Minnesota Womens' Political Caucus, the Women's Equity Action League, and many other key feminist groups.  In 1977, Carter appointed her Assistant Secretary of State for Women's Affairs.  In between she wrote the language for Title IX, and got it through Congress.  When Reagan eliminated the position in State in 1981, she brought many of the programs back to Minnesota, put them into the Humphrey Institute where she was appointed, raised the money to run them over the next 12 years. 

In 1993, after Clinton's election, considerable lobbying went into getting the new administration to appoint her as the US Delegate to the UN Commission on the Status of Women -- and she was appointed.  But after about three years, Hillary had Arvonne fired just before the Beijing UN Conference.  According to Arvonne, Hillary did not want to bother with all the linked up Feminist Organizations that had carried this effort over the bad years of Reagan and Bush I, and thus decided Arvonne had to leave.  She did.  Arvonne did not exactly appreciate the fact that Hillary had one of Arvonne's best friends do the honors, and in addition have other Clinton people in State see too it that the US lost its seat on the UN Commission by not attending the meeting where nominations were done.

So Arvonne came home, ran a few more campaigns, kept her hand in, and decided to write her political biography.  Came out last fall -- got much local attention given that any DFL'er who has ever managed a campaign gets Arvonne style training, (and we love her).  Arvonne doesn't actually dislike Hillary -- she just doesn't think she has really paid her dues sufficent to claim the Feminist Halo.  Arvonne understands that Marriages between people involved deeply in Poliics are pretty normal, but that unless each partner holds up their own end in their own field, the accomplishments of one partner do not necessarily pass through to the other partner.  Anyhow, this election season she did not endorse Hillary, I am not sure who she prefers between Obama and Edwards, but I am sure she will organize her February 5th Precinct Caucus. 

Because Garrison Keillor has done two hour long interviews with Arvonne on local Public Radio -- and because he asked questions about Hillary essentially ordering Arvonne eliminated from the State Department, this has become an undercurrent in the local DFL circles, and I am led to understand that across the country there are similar stories being told that do not serve the Clinton Presidential Campaign well.  All the older Feminists who were in on the action in the late 60's and through the 70's know all about this sort of thing, and while many of them would love to see a woman elected President, they are not sure about this candidate, and they have withheld support.   I think Arvonne's book and her story are at the root of it all.  When leadership knows you had a hand in firing the woman who probably founded more specialized feminist organizations than anyone else -- you have cards to show before you get an endorsement.   My guess is that the tale Arvonne tells has counterparts all over the country, and once the first little break occured in the dike around the Clinton Machine, the instinct was to walk away, to not engage with saving something for Hillary.  Afterall, she fired Arvonne Fraser. 

I have many more examples that fit in with this story -- the decision the Clinton's made to oppose Howard Dean's election to chair the DNC back in 2005, the efforts they made to stop in its tracks the 50 State Program that Dean helped plan, and has carefully executed.  All that stuff coming out of Rahm Emanual in 2006 about Dean sending the DNC money to state party organizations, and not to Rahm's committee -- all that was about who owns the party, and who decides what outside movements are part of the party process and thus influence it.  But right now I think the fact that Arvonne is telling her story, on radio that carries into South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin and of course all of Minnesota has been somewhat influential.  I suspect across the country, there are other very similar stories, and taken together they are the back story to the crash of the 100 million dollar campaign.

And don't forget that last name, Fraser.  I will be coming back to it in my next post which will be about Caucus Rules, Math and Democratic Party Reforms.  That is Arvonne's Husband.