Religion Politics

The news lately about this election has not really been about the close race, or the fact that in less than a week a toss up state in Indiana will have their turn to vote in the race for the Democratic nomination, but rather it has been about religion. The whole controversy is over comments made by Obama's (now former and estranged) pastor, Jeremiah Wright. These comments were anti-American comments and some say that Obama did not to a well enough job in repudiating these comments. However, just yesterday, Obama basically split with Wright, saying he was shocked and appalled at his comments from earlier in the week. Overall, this may hurt Obama, but as many of times before, big issues one day are yesterday's news the next day. With this controversy with the Pastor Wright in the news today, I bet a lot of people have forgotten the whole deal with the rumor that Obama is actually a Muslim.

All of this hoop la around the religion controversy reminds me of the 1976 election with Jimmy Carter. In that campaign, Carter, who is a devout Southern Baptist from Georgia, did an interview with Playboy Magazine about religion. In it, Carter said that any man who looks and lusts for another woman, even in their own mind, is committing adultery, and that he was guilty of that sin. He then said that he was forgiven by Christ. The headlines in the news in the next few days read that "Carter Sinned" and "Carter Lusts For Other Women." This hurt his poll numbers and his standing among the public (sort of like what is happening to Obama right now), however Carter ended up winning the election of 1976 regardless.

Sources from:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/30/ED2010DQND.DTL
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01obama.html?ref=us

Electoral Tit-for-Tat

We have all heard it before, the Democratic Primary has been essentially going back and forth, or as Professor Cassino put it, tit-for-tat. It all started off in Iowa, with an Obama win. Then Clinton won in New Hampshire and Nevada. Not to be outdone, Obama won in South Carolina, and then a few weeks later, both candidates essentially split the super Tuesday contests and we are now here, for the most part tied, with Obama with what some put it as an advantage that is too far for Clinton to catch up to. Lately, after Clinton's win in the Pennsylvania primary, polling has showed that the race is tied nationwide among Democrats' choice for the Democratic nomination, and has been looking that way for about the past week. This back and forth and essentially tied up race for the Democratic nomination (thus the name tit-for-tat, or back and forth) is starting to wind down, and many Democrats hope that at the end of the contests in June, the nominee will be selected.

The next contests in this back and forth race is on May 6 (That is if you exclude the Guam caucuses that occur on May 3, but only have 4 delegates at stake). The two contests that occur on that date are in North Carolina and Indiana. With an electorate that would favor Obama in North Carolina (much the way the electorate in Pennsylvania favored Clinton) and since he is most likely to win that primary barring something totally unexpected, Indiana is the next big prize up for grabs in this tit-for-tat race. Many view this state as a toss-up, giving some momentum to the winner into the final few contests of the nominating season. Polls recently have shown this race to be tied, with no clear favorite. This entire campaign, we have seen that when one of the candidates wins, the other one makes a comeback a few days or weeks later in the next contests, thus tit-for-tat (ala Clinton's victory in New Hampshire and Nevada and then Obama's victory in South Carolina).

Now if in the last contests and if the super delegates don't decide fast enough, the Democrats could go to a dead locked convention in Denver in late August. That and all of this tit-for-tat in the primary season with each candidate going back and forth in the primaries reminds me of an election from not too long ago in 1976. In the 1976 race, GOP candidates Ronald Reagan and President Gerald Ford were going tit-for-tat in the primary season. When one won a contest, the other won would also win a contest. It was a close race, and neither was able to secure enough delegates to win the GOP nomination. The race went to the convention in the summer and a fight ensued between Reagan and Ford until President Ford finally prevailed and had enough delegates for the nomination. That finally ended the tit-for-tat primary season in 1976. If one candidate in this election for the Democrats isn't decided before the convention, we could possibly see something similar in what happened to the Republicans in 1976. We shall soon see if that tit-for-tat continues, if Clinton wins big in Indiana, or if it ends and Indiana goes heavily for Obama.

Information obtained from:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/ot_20080429_6505.php
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/29/polls-clinton-obama-tied-in-indiana/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/29/clinton-obama-dead-even-for-fifth-straight-day/

Debates styles like Lincoln; differences since 2004 in parties

On Saturday April 26, 2008, Hilary Clinton announced to the nation that before the next major primary on May 6, she wanted a debate modeled off the historic debate in 1858.  The 1858 debate was between President Lincoln and Stephen Douglas which involved no moderator but just the two candidates challenging and answering each others questions.  Obama announced though the next day that he did not want to partake in another debate in Indiana or North Carolina and that he was not “ducking the debates” with his rival.  Maybe his reason for not wanting to debate again besides the fact that he had “21 already,” is the fact that since his debates his lead in the race went from 19 percent down to 7.  41 percent of Americans views have changed since Senator Obama was linked to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who’s sermons reached news a few weeks ago.
    

A great deal has changed since the election of 2004. Besides Bush’s approval rating plummeting to almost nothing, the Republican party seems to be losing voters. Of course with the war in Iraq, there are many that feel we don’t belong there and will vote democratic; yet, because of the marcopartisianship effect, there is still a threat of terror and September 11 in the backs of many minds which will lead to people staying Republican in times of crisis.  In 2004, Bush had a substantial amount of the Hispanic vote supporting him but that has changed since.  Now that there has been a wall built between Mexico and the US, with immigration controls tighter, Hispanics have left to go to the democratic side. Religious views are still the same with social issues somewhat different.  Obamas religion as well as McCain’s will definitely play a key role in the election process. It will be interesting to the see changes from 2004 to 2008 this year.

News article : http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/26/obama.debate/index.html#cnnSTCText

-Justin O'Connor

Racial Divide

Political parties throughout history have had a difficult time holding themselves together. This is especially true since 1940 when primary elections started to become more important in choosing the next party candidate. The election of 1940 was the first election to start using public opinion polls showing how much the country was favoring one candidate over another (Boller 252-254). It seems as though now the Democrats are really experiencing that problem known as the primary election. The biggest fear now is that race could potentially divide the party, even more than it appears it already has. As New York lawyer was quoted by MSNBC as saying of Clinton, “There’s no way for her to win this election except by destroying [Obama].” It seems as though this is the growing opinion as Clinton financial supporters switch sides to support Obama. Seventy-three of Clinton’s contributors who had made the maximum allowable contribution to her campaign, in March, donated the maximum amount allowable to Obama, clearly showing their change of support or distaste in the Clinton campaign.
As seen in previous elections, once supporters start changing horses, it does not take long until the rest of a candidate’s support dries up. This used to be the reason why the Iowa caucuses were so important. A candidate’s momentum was either built up or destroyed by the results of the caucus. However, these extended primaries have messed everything up, making it an all out brawl to the finish.
One of the major concerns is that this bloody battle will leave the democratic to bloody and bruised to fight the republicans in the election. That this primary will have put such a bad taste in certain party member’s mouths that they will not be willing to change their vote over to the other candidate.
There are a number of people who have a problem with the way the other member’s of the Democratic Party who keep bringing Obama’s pastor into the picture as an anti-American figure. As Reverend Jeremiah A Write Jr. was quoted as saying, "When something is taken like a sound bite for a political purpose and put constantly over and over again, looped in the face of the public, that's not a failure to communicate. Those who are doing that are communicating exactly what they want to do, which is to paint me as some sort of fanatic or as the learned journalist from the New York Times called me, a 'wackadoodle.' “ These kinds of attacks will just further separate the party and make it harder for them to reunite against McCain in the upcoming months.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24320557/

Boller, Paul F. Jr. Presidential Campaigns. Oxford University Press Inc 1984.

What should I trust more, what I see or what I’m told?

In the 1968 Presidential Campaign voters were exposed to images from the Vietnam War courtesy of television. The Museum of Broadcast Communications website states that “Vietnam was the first "television war." The medium was in its infancy during the Korean conflict, its audience and technology still too limited to play a major role. The first "living-room war," as Michael Arlen called it, began in mid-1965, when Lyndon Johnson dispatched large numbers of U.S. combat troops, beginning what is still surely the biggest story television news has ever covered”(Vietnam on Television). American Voters were for the first time able to rely on images of the war, rather than the words of Johnson’s administration. During the January 1968 State of the Union, Lyndon Johnson stated to the American people that there was much progress in Vietnam, but with the images the people were shown nightly on the news, Johnson’s assessment was hard to believe. “Since I reported to you last January:
--Three elections have been held in Vietnam--in the midst of war and under the constant threat of violence.--A President, a Vice President, a House and Senate, and village officials have been chosen by popular, contested ballot.--The enemy has been defeated in battle after battle.--The number of South Vietnamese living in areas under Government protection tonight has grown by more than a million since January of last year” (LBJ Library and Museum Website). http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/680117.asp
This State of the Union was a statement to the American people that the war was going well, even though the media and television reports were telling them a drastically different story. Ultimately the unpopular images of the war outweighed Johnson’s positive portrayed and he decided to seek peaceful alternatives and not run for another presidential term. This conflict between media images and presidential messages (or in the case of John McCain presidential hopefuls) is something fairly common. In the 2008 election John McCain has been portrayed as having positive views on the War in Iraq, when the television and media reports have been mostly negative. A CBS news report states that John McCain's upbeat view of the war in Iraq isn't shared by many Americans, according to a CBS News poll. McCain's negative ratings have risen this year, and a sizeable number of Americans believe he's painted too rosy a picture of the situation in Iraq”(CBS.Com). As with the Vietnam War, those who view the Iraq War on television have a more pessimistic view of the situation “The poll listed on the CBS website also found that two-thirds of Americans continue to believe things are going badly in Iraq, about the same number as a month ago but more negative than one year ago. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/11/opinion/polls/main2670978.shtml. Some political analyst belive that if McCain does not alter his views on the war in Iraq, he could face the same political fate as Lyndon Johnson, only time will tell

The impact of the 1912 Primaries

In the primary elections of 1912 Teddy Roosevelt was running against William Taft in the first primaries. Former President Roosevelt won in landslide victories in 9 out of the 12 primaries. However, when the convention met to decide on whom the candidate would be TR had the nomination pulled out from under him and given to William Taft. The online Biography of TR boldly states that due to the 1912 primaries not deciding the winner, "never again would any political party decline to nominate the clear winner of the presidential primaries." (http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/bullmoose.htm)

That statement could be tested this year as the democratic primaries come to a close. Barack Obama heads towards the home stretch as the Teddy Roosevelt, with the most states won, the most votes overall, and the most pledged delegates. As the race is prolonged and dragged on by the hopes of Hillary Clinton the end could become even more like the 1912. Clinton is calling for Superdelegates, and even pledged delegates if they would be so kind, to back her despite the facts. She bases her case off of random facts such as she has won more larger states and has done better in the traditionally strong democratic voter categories.

Knowing the results of declining to follow the voice of the American people rang out loud and clear in 1912 when TR's third party the Bull Moose Party took second over William Taft and the Republican party, the Democratic National Party should tread lightly in the months to come. The Superdelegates have the ability to step in and end this pointless bickering. At any point the Superdelegates can step in and pledge their support to the clear victor of the people, but they have remained silent and allowed the party to be torn apart. What good is the past if you aren't going to learn from it?


Andrew Stoltzfus

Verified Trust.

When President Regan spoke of “trust, but verified” he meant the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union. The President could just as easily have been referencing the relationship between libertarians and Republicans. Some libertarians in the GOP feel very often like President Eisenhower, when in the run up to the 1952 presidential campaign, he was forced to align himself with Senator William Jenner, and after having to embrace him during a campaign event, remarked afterward to a confidant: “I felt dirty from the touch of the man” (Boller 52).

There has existed a “Cold War” of sorts between libertarians and Republicans through the decades. At times, these icy relations have thawed in the name of political expediency. The inception of the RLC, or, The Republican Liberty Caucus, has helped to bridge some of the more common divides between the philosophy of liberty and the Republican ideology.

This is not to say that the extremely uneasy alliance hasn’t had its drawbacks and stumbles. One suspects often times that libertarians and Republicans agree on core principles more often than not. Paradoxically, one realizes members of both respective governing philosophies are more often than not very reticent to concede this reality. Republicans often declare that they do not “need” libertarians to advance their political agenda. Libertarians sometimes declare that the Republicans do not reflect their values and are poorly conceived impersonators of true libertarian ideals.

In the Republican glory days of the 1990’s and through the early part of the twenty-first century, when they firmly controlled both chambers of Congress, Republicans might have been right. Those were heady times for the Republican Party. It seemed to Americans, and analysts alike, that the American people were secure in the cradling arms of Republican governance for the foreseeable future. There was no divided government for the Republicans to be concerned about. They had the House, the Senate, and even The White House in 2000.

Dawn has broken over a very different Republican Party. The gains achieved since the 1990’s were for all intensive purposes washed away by the Democrat Tsunami of 2006. Many liberty-minded and moderate individuals abandoned the Republican Party when the party of supposed limited government and fiscal responsibility began increasing the government’s size and scope. The Republican Party oversaw the greatest expansion of government since The Great Society (Goldberg). Add to this stormy mix an immigration policy that made liberty-minded individuals uncomfortable, and many saw a political alliance shattered by irreconcilable differences.

Turning to the minor Libertarian Party, the politically homeless former GOP members were confronted by an unacceptably radical utopian platform and a mandatory pledge that disavowed the use of force for political or social gain, in any circumstance. In a political climate such as the one America finds herself in now, where approval ratings are remarkably low for both Major Parties, the 2008 presidential election cycle would seemed to have been the opportunity that Libertarians should have seized upon to raise the prominence of the nation’s third largest political party, and welcome a disheartened electorate. The dualopoly of the U.S. electoral system dooms any minor party however, and the ‘party of principle’ is no exception. Thirty-five plus years of electoral drought will almost certainly continue on for the foreseeable future.

During the early appearances of his 1952 presidential bid, General Eisenhower attempted to strike a moderate tone. According to Paul F. Boller, Jr. in Presidential Campaigns: “He took the ‘middle road’ and, although attacking centralized powers in Washington, accepted the social gains of the Roosevelt era as ‘solid floors’ on which private enterprise could build a better life for people.”

By the Fall of that same year, however, General Eisenhower, a warrior by trade, was forced to make peace with the more right-wing elements of the GOP. Eisenhower met with Senators Taft (R-Ohio), Jenner (R-Indiana) and McCarthy (R-Wisconsin). Eisenhower remained privately embarrassed by these individuals and the right wing they represented of the Party, and perceived them as unprincipled and smear artists (Boller 283). Eisenhower’s embarrassment over those he had politically aligned himself with only increased when Senator McCarthy declared General George C. Marshall “a front man for traitors” (Boller 283). Eisenhower was close friends with General Marshall for thirty-five years, and was planning to defend his friend in a speech, when he quashed the particular portion of his speech defending Marshall, at the behest of Republican leaders.

The Republican Party needs libertarians more now than ever, and perhaps libertarians need the Republican Party if they are ever to find a successful vehicle in which to advance their ideals. Republicans can no longer afford to take Independents for granted, nor dismiss libertarians and their strongly held beliefs. In his piece “Libertarians and the Republican Party: Irreconcilable Differences, attorney Glenn Greenwald, wrote:

There are no more vibrant libertarian components left of the Bush movement. Libertarians (in the small "l" sense of that word) have either abandoned the Bush-led Republicans based on the recognition -- catalyzed by the Schiavo travesty -- that there are no movements more antithetical to a restrained government than an unchecked Republican Party in its current composition. Or, like Reynolds, they have relinquished their libertarian impulses and beliefs completely as the price for being embraced as a full-fledged, unfailingly loyal member of the Bush-led Republican Party.

In his article Keeping Libertarians Inside The Tent, which appeared in The National Review, constitutional attorney Randy Barnett wrote of political compromise between Republicans and libertarians:

Stop making snide gratuitous remarks about libertarians. Nothing turns off libertarians more than the sort of wholly gratuitous snide remarks about libertarians in conservative publications. By gratuitous I mean they show up even in articles about policies with which libertarians and conservatives agree. The more libertarians feel unwelcome in the coalition that is the Republican party, the more they will vote Libertarian…
[However], The Republican coalition is, after all, a coalition and libertarians if they are inside the tent cannot be expected to call all the shots.



If both chambers of Congress are to be taken back by Republicans in the foreseeable future, they will need the full-fledged support of the libertarian movement within the Republican Party. Moreover, if the Republican Party wishes to hold the White House in the upcoming Presidential Election, the GOP can do so only by nurturing and cultivating its alliance with libertarians. Senator McCain might be just the right maverick standard bearer to accomplish this task, or he might not.

There are some common ideals that libertarians and Republicans could agree upon. However, if political compromise is to be possible, one, or both sides, cannot feel like President Eisenhower in the 1952 presidential election. That is to say, being able to compromise politically without surrendering their principles in the process. Only in this way, may it be possible for libertarians and the GOP to build a foundation from which a better, stronger and more trustful relationship is forged.

By Ryan Christiano.

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-goldberg29jan29,1,7344906.column

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4071

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/libertarians-and-republican-party.html

Boller, Paul F. Jr. Presidential Campaigns. Oxford University Press Inc 1984.