tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31810001684670579992024-02-19T19:21:13.119-05:00August PrairieLET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT. - A. LincolnAmy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.comBlogger205125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-82759758357211007342018-01-31T13:07:00.000-05:002018-01-31T13:07:27.778-05:00Politics in the United States: The First Two Party System (1801-1824)After a vicious campaign that ended in a rancorous decision by the House of Representatives, Thomas Jefferson's inauguration was anti-climactic. He chose to take a tone of reconciliation, wishing to tamp down some of the conflict that was bubbling under the surface of the United States. The switchover from the Federalist administration of Adams to the Republican one of Jefferson was peaceful, if not exactly amicable. No matter how dire the situation, or how little each party liked the other, this transition set a precedent which has still endured.<br />
<br />
However, that didn't mean partisanship went away. The Federalist party was still a going concern, and it definitely had differences with the Jeffersonians. All through the Jefferson administration they would push back against Jefferson, with limited success. This was in large part due to the lack of power they had, as the Republicans controlled majorities in both the Senate and the House. In addition, the party suffered from a lack of solid leadership, with Adams retired and Hamilton disgraced (and in 1804 killed in the famous duel with Aaron Burr). As it was until the 17th Amendment, the Senate was selected by state legislatures, so the dominance of this chamber by the Republicans showed how the states were also controlled by the followers of Jefferson, at least outside of New England.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
As time went on, the Federalists continued to slowly wither away, becoming primarily a regional party of New England, and even there mostly for the elites. Jefferson won reelection easily in 1804, beating Charles Coatsworth Pinckney. In 1808, Jefferson followed Washington's example and chose not to run for a third term, which opened the door for James Madison. He won in a repeat performance against Pinckney, winning every state outside of New England save for Delaware. The Federalist party's prospects were so dim, even John Adams' son John Quincy decided to switch to the Republican party in 1808.<br />
<br />
The last gasp of the Federalists came in 1812, as the War of 1812 began and Madison was up for reelection. The Federalists ran DeWitt Clinton, who came the closest to unseating a Republican, winning 7 states (3 outside of New England). However, it wasn't enough, and Madison's administration would barely escape the war with the British with a draw. The Federalists were adamantly opposed to the war, and even held a conference to propose new constitutional amendments to prevent the situation happening in the future. However, as they held little power in the Federal government, this opposition amounted to little.<br />
<br />
With the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, Madison had secured a draw against the world's greatest colonial power. This bolstered the Republicans and further hampered the Federalists. The presidential election of 1816 saw James Monroe (Madison's Secretary of State) easily defeat Rufus King. This would be the last election the Federalists would put a candidate forth, as in 1820 Monroe won reelection by an almost unanimous electoral count. The Federalist party lingered for a while longer in Congress and on the state and local levels, but it was done as a national concern. It appeared that a general consensus had developed around the American System of Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams, John Calhoun, and the other leaders of the Republican party. The Era of Good Feeling was in place, but Monroe would be leaving office after the 1824 election, and there wasn't a clear successor to be found. Another era of bitter partisanship was just around the corner.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-42979030542245354342017-12-06T08:00:00.000-05:002017-12-10T03:09:41.594-05:00Politics in the United States of America: The Birth of Partisanship (1789-1800)The United States was officially declared independent by the 2nd Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. This independence became a settled fact after the signing of the Treaty of Paris (1783) by the United Kingdom and the United States. However, our current governmental system was not yet in place during either of these times.<br />
<br />
For the first 13 years of the United States of America, the government was under the Articles of Confederacy. It created an incredibly weak central government, reserving most powers to the 13 states that were a part of it. The national government had no ability to raise funds directly, and most important matters could be vetoed by a single state. To say it didn't really work is an understatement.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
The situation got bad enough that in 1787 the states came together in Philadelphia to write a new constitution. Originally planning on amending the existing Articles, the convention instead wrote a completely new document our current Constitution of the United States. Much better than the Articles, it established a framework for the Federal government that for the most part has stayed stable for over 200 years. Even so, it was a flawed document built around compromise between the more merchant based states of the north, where slavery was starting to erode, and the agricultural states of the south, where slavery was most certainly not going away. The infamous 3/5 compromise allowed southern states to count slaves as 3/5 of a person for purposes of apportionment of House of Representative seats was the most notable. It was the price that had to be paid to get the southern states to agree to the new Constitution, but one that ultimately would lead to the great cataclysm of the Civil War.<br />
<br />
Almost immediately after the Constitution was signed and submitted to the states it became a divisive issue. On one side were the Anti-Federalists such as Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry, who viewed the document as overreach and gave too much control to a central government. Some were adamant opponents unwilling to even consider ratifying the constitution. Others, however, were merely concerned with a lack of guarantees for basic rights. Some of this latter group would be reluctantly assuaged by promises of a Bill of Rights to be added upon ratification of the Constitution and establishment of the new Congress.<br />
<br />
On the other side were the group called Federalists. The most prominent members of this group were John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. In the runup to the ratification efforts in New York (and other states), Hamilton and Madison, along with John Jay, wrote <i>The Federalist Papers</i>, several essays designed to defend the Constitution from the arguments made by the Anti-Federalists. The works were a powerful explanation of how the government was intended to function, and certainly played a role in helping ease along the ratification. One by one from Delaware in late 1787 to Rhode Island in 1790, each state ratified the constitution. In 1789, George Washington took office as our first President, with John Adams as his Vice President. The same year, Congress took up its first session in New York City.<br />
<br />
At first, there were no formal parties in the Federal government. The Anti-Federalists were less a party and more a loose coalition in opposition to the Constitution. Washington's cabinet included Alexander Hamilton as the Secretary of the Treasury and Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State. As time went on during Washington's tenure, it became clear that Jefferson (and Madison) had a different view of how the government should function than Hamilton (and Adams). Washington kept trying to keep his cabinet from falling into divisive squabbling, but it was too much. Issues about the role of the federal government in regards to direct taxation, to dealing with debt and other financial structures, and its relationship with the states pulled the two camps apart. In addition, the French Revolution was causing a divide between strong supporters of France and those who leaned to keeping relations stable with the United Kingdom.<br />
<br />
Despite the growing rift, Washington was again elected unanimously to a second term in 1792. Unable to do anything about the growing divide, Washington could only watch as Jefferson and his supporters formed the Democratic-Republican party. During the next four years Jefferson, Madison, and others hit back at Alexander Hamilton and John Adams and the rest of the Federalists. The new party was built on the idea of limited government, and the protection of property rights (including slaves). It ostensibly favored the common white man, and while not universal was more likely to support extending suffrage to all white men, regardless of income or property. While not necessarily opposed to internal improvements, they considered them the responsibility of the states, and not the Federal Government. They generally viewed France favorably, and abhorred tariffs and the British. As such, the party saw strong support from rural citizens, tradesmen and artisans, and much of the plantation owners in the South.<br />
<br />
On the other side, the Federalists believed in a stronger central government. They were the main proponents of the First Bank of the United States, and believed in a strong financial backing by the government in order to strengthen commerce. They generally favored good relations with the British, and eyed the French revolution warily. For the most part they were skeptical of extending voting rights to those without property and considered universal suffrage the path to mob rule. They found their strongest support amongst merchants and the wealthy along the coasts, including several prominent plantation owners in the coastal south. While not actively anti-slavery, northern Federalists were less likely to support the institution, and welcomed the gradual abolition that was beginning to take place in their states.<br />
<br />
Leading up to the 1796 election, Washington stunned the country by announcing he would not seek a third term. Setting a precedent that would only be violated once (by FDR), Washington was ready to go into retirement and leave the cat herding to others. The Federalists put John Adams up for the office, while Jefferson was chosen as the candidate for the Democratic Republicans. In the first contested Presidential election, Adams barely beat Jefferson 71-68 in the Electoral College. Due to the way the constitution was set up at the time, Jefferson as the runner-up became the Vice President.<br />
<br />
While friends before the election and after they both retired from public office, Adams and Jefferson grew apart during this time. Jefferson rarely did much as Vice President, all the while actively working for the 1800 campaign. Meanwhile Adams endured a miserable tenure as President, the lowest point being his signing of the Alien and Sedition acts, While he walked a narrow path keeping us out of a full blown war with France and the United Kingdom, he grew increasingly unpopular. This was in part due to the ugly campaigning that the Jeffersonian press was engaged in. All the while, Adams was unpopular with the ultra Federalists (such as Hamilton) in his own party, who were angry at his reluctance to enter a war with France. By the time the official campaign of 1800 started, an ugly situation got even uglier as both Federalists and Democratic Republicans got down into the mud. With insults, insinuations, and outright falsities the press supporting both candidates were shameless, as the campaign ground on to its conclusion.<br />
<br />
In the end, Adams was just too unpopular, and finished a distant third in the ballot. However, the mess wasn't over, as Jefferson's running mate Aaron Burr received the same number of electoral college votes as Jefferson. As such, this sent the election to the House of Representatives, where Burr tried his hand to get enough states to vote for him over Jefferson. After weeks of debate and backroom deals, the House voted for Jefferson. In time the constitution would be amended so the Vice Presidential votes were counted separately from the Presidential votes, prohibiting a situation like this from happening.<br />
<br />
After a tumultuous campaign, the transfer of power was thankfully peaceful and without incident. Jefferson took office without resorting to military power or the power of the mob, and Adams left without delay. Regardless of the relationship of the previous President and the new one, from then on to today each transfer has gone pretty smoothly. The campaigns, however, are a different story.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-14874569285034149642017-12-04T08:00:00.000-05:002017-12-04T08:00:34.675-05:00Politics in the United States of America: An IntroductionThere are very few times in American history that have been as divided as we are now. Red states or blue states, liberals or conservatives, authoritarians or libertarians, there seems at time to almost be two nations within one, two systems of politics and "realities". How did we get here, and how do we get out? Or can we even get out of it at this point?<br />
<br />
These are all questions I hope to answer as I write on this blog. Look, I know blogs are old fashioned, at least relative to other forms of "content" on today's Internet. But this is a much better format to get these thoughts out then polluting up people's timeline on Facebook, or creating a god-awful /500 tweet thread on Twitter that would chase away the few remaining followers. A big reason for doing this is to regularly write, to get rid of some of those thoughts swimming in my head and dragging me down. It's a way to explore our past, present, and future, while also blowing off steam about the terrible crisis we are fast approaching.<br />
<br />
I hope you reading this will get some use out of this, and welcome discussion, whether you agree or disagree. I'm not denying any bias, but instead am honest that my approach is most definitely from a standpoint that sits on the left of the political spectrum. I welcome disagreement and arguments from you who are not, but stale talking points will likely be ignored, and nonsense will be answered with absurdity. Particularly when dealing with historical facts, I feel confident that the information I'm sharing reflects what happened as best as can be told, but if I'm clearly pulling from some apocrypha (and there's plenty of that in our "known" American history to go around) please let me know.<br />
<br />
These posts will have a fairly linear trajectory, and will comprise three parts. Part One will be a series of posts detailing how we got here. For the first thirty-five years of the Constitutional United States of America (1789-1824) there won't be separate posts for the two main parties, but once things get going with the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs, posts will be split between different phases of the Democratic party, and its two main opponents. Third parties will be explored as well, although only within the context of the eras discussed for the other two parties. While worthy of their own exploration, third parties really only play a small role in our current situation.<br />
<br />
Part Two will discuss the situation we currently face. This includes the global situation, and the United States current role in it. It also includes the Federal government, and the governments of our states. Finally, it includes the obstacles and threats facing the Democratic Party (and to an extent, the almost insurmountable task before Republicans who are sick of the current state of their party have before them) as we look towards the 2018 midterms, an election that is arguably one of the most crucial elections in our nation's history.<br />
<br />
Part Three will go beyond 2018. I'll be looking at 2020, yes, but more in a bigger picture sense of how to truly move past this awful situation we currently are in. In addition, I'll also discuss how we can prevent this dangerous situation from happening again.<br />
<br />
The next post will be kicking off part one with the establishment of the Constitution, the election of Washington, and the beginning of our partisan political system.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-22527750626468502202017-01-27T21:51:00.000-05:002017-01-27T21:52:07.484-05:00On President #45's Reprehensible Executive Order Regarding Syrian Refugees<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="cjt0q" data-offset-key="a3pr9-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTZTWvBVvpt6f1xUp_5Ue1h6aTMhQ_8BPttGbzBdYuRzQt37vyHRpmGTGCnB43JfbE6iNyQ4j78tWEPcZz-dIIAoRjLNLmWYwGssI1jwKmHdJBzDLR1DAKRk2Uw7rZAViGnP_wZsp2rD0R/s1600/StLouisHavana.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="293" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTZTWvBVvpt6f1xUp_5Ue1h6aTMhQ_8BPttGbzBdYuRzQt37vyHRpmGTGCnB43JfbE6iNyQ4j78tWEPcZz-dIIAoRjLNLmWYwGssI1jwKmHdJBzDLR1DAKRk2Uw7rZAViGnP_wZsp2rD0R/s400/StLouisHavana.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The <i>MS St. Louis</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="a3pr9-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; text-overflow: ellipsis;">
<span data-offset-key="a3pr9-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="a3pr9-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; text-overflow: ellipsis;">
<span data-offset-key="a3pr9-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">Stopping the acceptance of Syrian war refugees, even for a relatively small amount of time is the wrong thing to do, and I'm ashamed of my President and my country for doing it.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="cjt0q" data-offset-key="ee0p2-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="ee0p2-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; text-overflow: ellipsis;">
<span data-offset-key="ee0p2-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="cjt0q" data-offset-key="9dqj0-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="9dqj0-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; text-overflow: ellipsis;">
<span data-offset-key="9dqj0-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">This is not who we should be. It certainly is in line with how we've acted a lot of the times in our past (for an example see the tragedy of the jewish refugees on the <i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis" target="_blank">MS St. Louis</a></i>). However, even still, we've often been the refuge of last resort for many displaced peoples and those who were on the losing side of conflicts in their country. Each time we've done so, these communities of refugees, rather than being dangerous and destabilizing, have made our country stronger. Somalis in Minnesota, Bosnians in St. Louis, Vietnamese in California, even Irish and Germans political refugees from the failed revolutions and rebellions of 1848. They all have made this country a more vibrant, better place, and them and their descendants are the very essence of America, at least the promise and potential of us.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="cjt0q" data-offset-key="d9gp5-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="d9gp5-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; text-overflow: ellipsis;">
<span data-offset-key="d9gp5-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span data-offset-key="d9gp5-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="cjt0q" data-offset-key="am7gf-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="am7gf-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; text-overflow: ellipsis;">
<span data-offset-key="am7gf-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">I know people are scared. They see the cruelty of groups like ISIS and the thoughts of attacks both foreign (Paris) and domestic (San Bernardino) are fresh in so many of our minds. So much of the media we consume further reinforces the danger of "them", that those who are different and from different areas aren't to be trusted. Nevermind that refugees aren't looking to attack us and are much more likely to be looking to get away from chaos and bloodshed in their own countries. Nevermind that the previous Adminstration's policies were byzantine and makes it virtually impossible for some "sleeper agents" to trick their way into our country. Nevermind that so many of our bloodiest attacks were done by natural born citizens of multiple faiths. Just because an irrational fear is irrational doesn't make it any less pervasive or all encompassing. When you look outside your door and all you see are potential enemies, it is hard to convince you otherwise.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="cjt0q" data-offset-key="20d02-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="20d02-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; text-overflow: ellipsis;">
<span data-offset-key="20d02-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="cjt0q" data-offset-key="4b1tg-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="4b1tg-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; text-overflow: ellipsis;">
<span data-offset-key="4b1tg-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">This isn't to convince anybody of anything. Most of you who disagree with me are probably not going to be convinced by me. There is no perfect thing to say that will convince everybody of the rightness of a cause, and oftentimes even trying will make the others dig in deeper. This is a truism for all of us, regardless of our political persuasion. </span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="cjt0q" data-offset-key="6c18r-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="6c18r-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; text-overflow: ellipsis;">
<span data-offset-key="6c18r-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="cjt0q" data-offset-key="f5kjm-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="f5kjm-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; text-overflow: ellipsis;">
<span data-offset-key="f5kjm-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">But to sit by and say nothing as we turn away the weary, the frightened, the threatened and the broken-hearted is not something I can tolerate. To boldly give preference to Syrian Christians, as we turn away their Muslim brothers and sisters is beneath all of us. I may not convince you to empathize with people who have so many of the same dreams and desires that we have (to be free from terror, to keep our loved ones from harm, to live without despair), but to not try is wrong.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="cjt0q" data-offset-key="bp696-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="bp696-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; text-overflow: ellipsis;">
<span data-offset-key="bp696-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br data-text="true" /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="cjt0q" data-offset-key="2d400-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="2d400-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative; text-overflow: ellipsis;">
<span data-offset-key="2d400-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">Instead of turning away so many, we should be taking in more. If American Exceptionalism means anything, it should mean turning back the tide of history, in all of its ignorance and terrible indifference, and going a different direction. We should be welcoming to all who are in trouble, who need a safe port from the storm. Not because it may benefit us (because it does), or is good foreign policy (because it is), but because it is right.</span></div>
</div>
Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-1642173114551497612016-11-13T19:19:00.000-05:002016-11-14T23:29:21.944-05:00On the Election of...ugh...really?<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPURR64hh3147sGuCgY00PAz6lUM3RupyVAepXorSUzII3qz80O_r5HmFUff-QJdf-ZdkLPyC85NFD5HCrA4Ebba_haDRMWmnA03z-D6rveFfYkYhab-A_8aM5ajdeIIjgEgtwbf6lxNoz/s1600/HobanNorthPortico.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPURR64hh3147sGuCgY00PAz6lUM3RupyVAepXorSUzII3qz80O_r5HmFUff-QJdf-ZdkLPyC85NFD5HCrA4Ebba_haDRMWmnA03z-D6rveFfYkYhab-A_8aM5ajdeIIjgEgtwbf6lxNoz/s400/HobanNorthPortico.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">White house is so small and lacks gold plating. Sad.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
[EDIT] This is a second draft of this post. Other than a few scattered thoughts, using "snake oil salesman" once, and the quote from William Lloyd Garrison, everything else is basically rewritten to be a bit more coherent.<br />
<br />
Well, 47% of America, you finally did it. After President Bush led our country to the cliff's edge of economic ruin, Barack Obama and his administration sucked it up, got us back on the road, and had us going the right way, albeit slower than we'd like in many places. And now, when you had the chance to keep going in that right direction, you decided instead to throw caution in the wind and swerve right off towards another cliff, this time one hanging over a terrible whirlpool of white supremacy, anti-semitism, international pariah status, and possibly worse.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
This post isn't to litigate the election, to put blame on anyone (believe me, there is plenty to go around to all but basically women of color, who did their damnest to keep us on the right track).<br />
<br />
I'm not here to point out that Clinton has won, and will end up winning, more votes than Donald Trump. I'm not here to complain about Wikileaks and Russia basically messing with our election process, with some assistance from a thoroughly incompetent (or worse) FBI Director.<br />
<br />
<br />
I also won't be discussing the rumors of Trump's cabinet picks, all of which rank from awful (Rudy Giuliani) to worse (John Bolton). Nor will I talk about how he won votes saying he'd "drain the swamp", while he proceeds to refill it with raw sewage mixed with radioactive waste. I won't even get into the clearly obvious voter suppression which had a major effect in several swing states (particularly WI and NC). Hell, I won't even spend much time on the pandering to the white nationalists, so that such wonderful organizations like Stormfront and the KKK became fans of our President elect.<br />
<br />
No my focus is one very big reason why so many of us are disgusted by this election result. This is not a normal thing, and we should not normalize it. While I accept that Trump won the election as per the Constitutional rules, I do refuse to "unify" behind a man so thoroughly corrupt and incompetent as Donald Trump.<br />
<br />
This has nothing to do with him being the Republican candidate. Had John McCain won in 2008, or Mitt Romney in 2016, I would have accepted their victory and given them the benefit of the doubt. Had pretty much every candidate who Trump bested in the Republican primary won the nomination, and beat Clinton in the general election, I too would have accepted the result and given them all a fair chance. I'd be pretty wary now that they controlled all of the levers of government, and somewhat bitter that they had successfully stolen a supreme court appointment from a sitting President, but I could have moved on to mere typical opposition. Most (but not all) of the Republican candidates were serious people.<br />
<br />
The President of the United States must be a serious person. That doesn't mean they can't have a sense of humor, or must be stern and stoic at all times. It means they must show a serious to the job, and understanding of the stakes and the importance. This is more than some ceremonial position where you get to fly around and sell your "brand". The President of the United States has incredible (although not unlimited) powers and responsibilities. Thousands, if not millions, of lives can be in jeopardy if a President makes a wrong decision.<br />
<br />
Think back through American history and try to picture Donald Trump as President. How does he handle the firing on Fort Sumter, or the Great Strike of 1877? How does he deal with the Nullification Crisis, or Influenza epidemic of 1919? What about the stock market crash of 1929, or the much more recent collapse of 2008? What happens if another 9/11 happens, or another Hurricane Katrina? Forgetting all of that, what if the New Madrid fault goes off, demolishing Memphis, decimating St. Louis, and causing a massive supply problem as truck, rail, and barge traffic would be very disrupted for weeks, if not months? How would Trump deal with a intricate, brittle diplomatic situation like the Cuban Missile Crisis? It's entirely possible similar situations could come up during his Presidency, considering they all happened before during a previous President's administration.<br />
<br />
Forgot the momentous events, what about the mundane parts of being a President. 95% of the job is being in boring meetings about minute policy details, or reading highly intense security or intelligence briefs, or gritting your teeth and smiling for pictures with some egotistical asshole just because he's a major diplomat, an important businessman, or even your successor. Throughout the campaign there have been plenty of stories about how Trump bores easily with the busy work of a campaign. If he can't keep interested during a campaign, how can he be expected to handle drinking from the fire hose of the Oval Office? He hates being away from his home in New York, how will he handle living in the White House?<br />
<br />
I know what some of you are thinking "but Andrew he has staff. He'll delegate, like the great businessman he is".<br />
<br />
Well, putting aside the fact that his acumen as a business man is not a sure thing, he doesn't seem to have an understanding of the scope of the job. Were you aware that he and his staff didn't realize that they have to build their own team in the West Wing? Yep, they assumed the staff was a hold over, like the civil service workers in the government departments. So even if he has the understanding of when exactly to delegate, there's no guarantee they'll understand what to do either.<br />
<br />
We had a chance to elect a flawed but competent, experienced woman who has served her country for almost fifty years. While not a born campaigner, she swallowed so much hatred and vitriol and kept going. She would have been an excellent fit for dealing with the mundane and banal tasks that truly make up the presidency. Millions of Americans would have benefited from her marginal, cautious, and incremental fixes. While hamstrung by a hostile Congress, she'd still be working on fighting climate change, rather than putting in place a man who denies it even exists.<br />
<br />
Instead we elected a snake oil salesman* who refuses to put his business interests in a true blind trust, instead having his children run it while also requesting they be given security clearances, a clear conflict of interest. This is a kakistocracy, a kleptocracy in the making. At best we'll have a Republican civil war, as Congress spars with an unpredictable President who changes his mind at a whim and scares the crap out of us all, including the billions of people who couldn't vote for him but are affected by the global power of the United States. At worst we're looking at an actual civil war, or some god-awful global conflict, or a complete collapse of the economy.<br />
<br />
There is no longer a bottom in American politics, and that is a truly scary thing. I suppose I should have known that most people don't think as much about their vote as this. I just thought enough took this seriously. A poll showed that one out of five voters who didn't think Trump was qualified for the job still voted for him. This means they were either unreconstructed Bernie Bros pissed at Clinton winning the nomination, people voting for Trump because of a laugh, or people who just really hated that Hillary Clinton's voice and didn't think through the consequences.<br />
<br />
Yes, not every body who voted for Trump is racist. The racial makeup of Trump's campaign, and how we react to it, is much more nuanced than that for many, heck, most of his supporters. In large part they voted for Trump because they felt their concerns weren't being heard.<br />
<br />
And yes, there is some truth to that, but you know what? That just means that the "forgotten" white middle class of the Midwest and Upper South are like so many groups that could be hurt by a Trump presidency. In a union? Congratulations, you just voted for a man who is thoroughly anti-union. Young American citizens are afraid Trump is going to deport them and their parents, while muslims (and Sikhs, who are victims of true ignorance) have to weigh their personal safety with keeping to their religious beliefs. Black people are wary of Trump, worried that all of the gains they've made since the beginning of the civil rights movement will be swept away as we enter the Second "Redemption"*. Sure, Trump says he's "fine with gay marriage", but he has railed against it in his rallies, as well as against treating transgender Americans as if they are humans worthy of respect. Ir also doesn't help that his Vice President will be a man who not only believes that conversion therapy is effective, but also believes the state should foot the bill for it.<br />
<br />
And oh yeah, we're replacing a President who leaves with an economy that's no longer in the hole caused by the Great Recession, who will leave office neither hobbled, mentally disabled, or racked with scandal. Barack Obama brought honor and respect back to America both here and abroad, and did it all with a whole heap of nasty shit thrown his way. He did it with Republicans refusing to help him out at almost every turn. He did it with a rabid and cynical gang of Fox News and talk radio attack dogs trying to delegitimize his presidency with the scurrilous rumor that he was not born in the United States. Despite that being the truth, and most Americans accepting that solid and unimpeachable fact, 47% of all Americans, a majority of the electoral college, decided to give the most well known "birther" of the bunch the white house. I was so proud of how the President handled meeting with Trump with a grace and respect that I'm certain I couldn't have mustered. He even is going to help give Trump some remedial assistance, in a likely futile effort to minimize the damage.<br />
<br />
On January 20, 2017, one of the best Presidents in recent times will be replaced by an unknown quantity. I hope I am dead wrong, and maybe Trump will surprise us all. I expect, however, that this will not be the case and will prepare accordingly. If you thought you weren't being heard, I guarantee you're heard loud and clear now. For my part, I'm going to be trying to escape my bubble and listen to more diverse points of view. Without compromising my principles, I will do my best to understand where you are coming from, and we hopefully can find some common ground as we head towards the 2018 midterms, and beyond. With luck we'll get out of this without too much damage, but if we have to rebuild the New Deal, restore our national parks, and regain the trust of the rest of the world, we can do it. Perhaps after two years of a mixed (or Democratic controlled) Congress, on January 20, 2021 we'll see a President who we all can be proud of.<br />
<br />
Until then, I will remain dejected and apprehensive, but also defiant and resolved in my course and conscience. Never again will I be so complacent and naive to believe that just because what I see is obvious isn't necessarily so to other people. With that I leave with a few quotes that seem appropriate given the current circumstances:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"They kilt us but they ain't whupped us yit" </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
- William Faulkner, <i>Absalom, Absalom! </i>(By way of Tim Kaine)</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #2a2e2e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">- H. L. Mencken</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #181818; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, serif; font-size: 14px;">“We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” </span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #181818; font-family: Merriweather, Georgia, serif; font-size: 14px;">- Kurt Vonnegut, <i>Mother Night</i></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">
<span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"With reasonable men I will reason, with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost."</span><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13.2px;">
<span style="color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">- William Lloyd Garrison</span><span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></blockquote>
* Only the best snake oil, I promise. Even crooked Hillary loves my snake oil. It's Yooge in the United States. Yoooge.<br />
<br />
**Read up on Reconstruction and the first "redemption" and disabuse yourself of the notion that we are always on a path to ever greater civil rights.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-53427716828394774292016-03-18T23:47:00.000-04:002016-03-18T23:47:40.923-04:00Where I Pivot away from the Primaries, and Towards the General ElectionPutting it out there right now: Bernie Sanders will not be the nominee of the Democratic party for the 2016 Presidential race.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Look, I know the Sanders camp is still beating the drums and saying it's still feasible for them to win. "Wait 'til New York, Bernie's a native." </div>
<div>
"California, folks, that's the place you oughta be. Bernie will win there."</div>
<div>
"Don't forget Montana and Idaho. Bernie will do great there!"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Nope. Uh-unh. And true, but those states have like six delegates. It's not enough. The math is <a href="http://www.tsu.co/post/118127368" target="_blank">just not there</a>. Anybody who thinks otherwise is either a) Just not ready to face the facts or b) is willfully lying in the pursuit of their own interests. If you're the latter, well, you won't be convinced by me because you're lying. But if you're the former, perhaps you can be convinced.</div>
<div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div>
I'll say it once, because to be honest it doesn't sit on my tongue too well. OK, heeeere it goes.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, and she's our last, best hope to keep the clown show on the GOP side from destroying everything we've gained during Obama's tenure, if not the country as a whole.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Frankly, it's been obvious this would be the result after she destroyed Sanders in South Carolina. It was there that any idea of Sanders reaching African-American voters vanished in smoke. This was further reinforced by her staggering victories on Super Tuesday, which gave her a very large delegate lead. The 45 delegates Sanders netted from his four victories were more than wiped out by her victory in Georgia. And that doesn't even count the lopsided losses he suffered in Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, Virginia, and Arkansas. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is a weird mirror of 2008, with Clinton in the role previous occupied by Barack Obama. Where the math belied her campaign's protestations in 2008, today they favor her. And guess what? Her delegate lead (not even counting the superdelegates) is already larger than Obama's ever was.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There's an argument for Sanders continuing to campaign. He can keep pressure on Clinton to continue tacking leftward (and she needs that pressure). It will give media exposure to her during these months before the big show begins post convention, instead of it being All Trump all the Time. And finally, he can give further reinforcement to the importance of income inequality, and how maybe there are other ways we can tackle it than the same old sorry ass crap. These are all great reasons for him to continue running. But the one that isn't good is him acting like he can win.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A year ago, had you told me Sanders would seriously put the scare into Clinton and win not only New Hampshire, but several other states, I would have thought you wildly delusional. But today, as strange as it is, this unlikely prospect feels like a drastic disappointment. The fact is Sanders' weaknesses probably doomed him, but they probably didn't have to be as bad as it turned out.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The fact is, if you want any movement from the left to succeed electorally you have to have a multicultural coalition You cannot do it without African Americans, without Hispanics, and without Asians. Sure you need some white voters, of all ages, but you aren't going to rally the mythical "Reagan Democrats" back into the fold. They're all "Reagan Republicans" now, if they haven't passed on. That isn't to say that there isn't a progressive case to be made to lesser educated lower income white voters. Just that there's a whole heap of work to do there, and you can't do it without tackling head-on the grim specter of white privilege, itself just the most prominent remnant of the ever-present legacy of American white supremacy. In other words, this is a long term goal, not a short-term electoral goal.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When I wrote a post stating my enthusiasm for Sanders campaign back after the stunning victory in New Hampshire, I thought that his campaign understand that, had synthesized that, and truly had a plan post New Hampshire. As it turned out, hindsight shows they didn't have a plan for cracking Clinton's in-grown advantage with the Democratic base, and instead pinned everything on attracting white independents to pursue the "political revolution". This was in large part because of blind spots of Bernie Sanders, and in large part because Tad Devine and Jeff Weaver are about as good at modern politics as Mark Penn was with the Clinton campaign in 2008. It's no surprise, then, that the Sanders campaign has often looked at best clueless, and at worst even encouraging some light version of the old racial dog whistle strategy so fondly used by the other party.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Look, gaining the trust of black voters in South Carolina, or hispanic voters in Texas, was going to be a tough get for Sanders. Clinton has decades of connections in these communities, and had some idea how to reach them. She also clearly used her connection as a member of Obama's cabinet to point a clear path from his legacy (He's a popular guy in the Democratic party, particularly with the black voters that are so crucial to the party). Sanders, on the other hand, has never quite gelled with this line, fumbling for a way to start a political revolution that also doesn't crap on the legacy of his would be predecessor. It hasn't worked so well. Also not helping is that as fumbling and incompetent as his messaging and campaign has been at times, Clinton seems to be firing on all cylinders. There is no doubt she is a more confident candidate, more comfortable on the trail. A large part of it is Robby Mook is much better at this than dinosaurs like Mark Penn (and Tad Devine). Especially post New Hampshire, she's just ran circles around Sanders at times.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I'm still not sold on Clinton, and I am completely unsold on her bonafides as a force of change, at least one for the progressive movement. I think she'll be effective at holding the line and protecting Obama's legacy, and perhaps she can do something about the impending climate crisis, as well as the major problem of police killings that fall overwhelmingly on the black communities of the United States. Maybe she'll be able to get enough Democrats and the few remaining reasonable Republicans together to finally put a compassionate and sensible immigration solution in place, erasing the failures of 2007 (in part due to Sanders opposition) and 2013 (the famous gang of eight failure that failed presidential candidate Marco Rubio walked away from). It's unlikely she'll have any chances at legislative victories beyond that, given that the house is unlikely to fall back into Democratic hands for a good while. Most importantly, she'll likely be in place to name replacements for one or two Supreme Court justices.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
However, it's in the realm of foreign policy I'm the most worried about her. I truly believe that her decision to support the Iraq War was a terrible judgement call on her part. Her foreign policy ideology is more hawkish than my own preferences, and the preferences of Obama.Whereas the Obama Doctrine is effectively "Don't Stop Stupid Shit", her philosophy can better be described as "Sometimes Do Stupid Shit, if You're doing it With Good Intentions". True, that's better than Sanders "What the Hell is Foreign Policy?", or the GOP'S "ALL STUPID SHIT ALL THE TIME". But it still worries me that we aren't facing down the foreign affairs establishment that has basically been entrenched since Yalta and doesn't seem to learn from its own mistakes. Clinton is a part of this, and it makes me uneasy. Perhaps she'll ease this by putting people more from the Obama side of the party in her cabinet, but she'll be calling the shots.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As I hinted at, however, even her well intentioned, old school doctrinaire foreign policy is still better than the disaster that would be the Trump (or Cruz) Doctrine. Put aside that, a GOP controlled White House will likely mean the Senate and House will also remain in the hands of the GOP. If you like the disaster wrought upon Kansas and Louisiana by their "model red state" experiments, than you'll love the disaster when it's put into Primetime. If either of these awful people take the Oath of Office next January, the international situation will destabilize instantly. It will be a complete failure for the millions of Americans who are Hispanic, or Muslim, or LGBTQIA (or all of the above), as honest to god white supremacists will feel empowered to "read between the lines" and dole out their own "justice". In other words, it will take the legacy of that wonderful November in 2008 and completely erase it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency on November 8, the Democratic party will have a chance to do something it hasn't done in 180 years. It's something Adlai Stevenson failed at in 1952. Hubert Humphrey couldn't do it in 1968, and Al Gore was denied it in 2000. That's right, it will be a Democrat following an incumbent two-term Democratic tenure. It's a rare chance to build upon what we've done so far, to at worst be a rear guard protecting the vital remnants of the New Deal and Great Society as we work to build a true response to the madhouse on the right, and continue to erase the damage that's already been done by decades of "Trickle Down Economics", "Compassionate Conservatism", and all the other terrible ideas of the conservative movement. As much as I don't trust her, and with all the reservations I have, I can't say its worth throwing that opportunity away. In other words, I won't let the perfect be the enemy of the (mostly) good.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We need a true movement on the left that can give us true leverage within (and without) the Democratic party. We need more Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warrens, Sherrod Browns, and Al Frankens in the Senate. We need more Keith Ellisons, Raul Grijalvas, John Lewises, and Dolores Huertas in the House. We need to get rid of awful garbage governors, whether they are Rick Scott, Sam Brownback, or Bruce Rauner, and replace them with governors who won't preside over the liquidation of our education system, the enshrinement of privatized prisons that are effectively a new form of slavery, and the destruction of even the most basic infrastructure needs. <b>These </b>are the goals of a true political revolution, and won't happen in one, two, or probably even a dozen elections. There is work to be done, people to listen to, and above all organizing that must happen. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So to all reasonable Bernie Sanders supporters out there, take your time to come to grips with the inevitable, but once you do, build off what you've learned, and let's get to work. It's not going to get any easier from here, and it doesn't end in November, or January, or November 2018, or 2020 and so on. If we are to build a future we can believe in, we'll need to put our effort into stopping Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. This starts by taking a deep breath, swallowing our reservations (for now) and saying "We're with Her!"</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-48398745956643743992016-03-02T21:25:00.000-05:002016-03-02T21:25:24.881-05:00Another Super Tuesday in the BooksNow that the day of multiple contests is in the book, we have a clearer picture of how this year's Presidential campaign is going to shake out. In short, unless you are a fan of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, things aren't looking so good.<br />
<br />
The Democrats are first, and the result shows how far Bernie Sanders campaign has come. Unfortunately, it also shows that time has run out for Sanders to find a viable path to the nomination. A year ago it would have been unimaginable Sanders would have beaten Clinton in one state, let alone winning five separate contests (counting his previous victory in New Hampshire). It's a real achievement his campaign has made it this far and racked up as many delegates as it had.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
However, it's a far cry from where his supporters (the author of this post included) hoped to be after Super Tuesday. The fact is that Sanders four victories in Colorado, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Vermont weren't even enough to match his delegate shortfall in Alabama, let alone the six other states Clinton won. Outside her close victory in Massachusetts, the other contests were blow outs. This was because of the enthusiastic support of African-American voters for Clinton. The extent to which she won the African-American support in the Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia was staggering. After New Hampshire, it was clear Sanders had some work to do in this department, and it's now clear his campaign has failed miserably. This aspect of his campaign is worth investigating more, which I intend to do in a subsequent post.<br />
<br />
On the other side, it was a big night for Donald Trump. By winning seven states he furthered secured his spot as the front-runner for the Republican nomination and has sent his detractors into a fully justified state of panic. Even though he didn't sweep (Ted Cruz won Alaska, Oklahoma, and Texas, and Rubio won Minnesota), he won the most delegates by far. From here on out, it's highly unlikely the "anybody but Trump" faction of the Republicans will be able to stop him, at least not until the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. The only way I could see it happening is if Rubio dropped out and swung his support to Cruz, a possibility that's not very likely. While the Democratic race is all but over, the circus on the right keeps going along.<br />
<br />
Where do things go from here? This weekend will see contests for both parties in Maine, Louisiana, Kansas, as well as a Republican caucus in Kentucky, a Republican primary in Puerto Rico, and a Democratic Caucus in Nebraska. Next Tuesday will see both parties go to the polls in Michigan and Mississippi, as well as a Republican caucus in Hawaii and a Republican primary in Idaho. A week from now, we'll have a clearer picture of the Republican situation, while on the Democratic side it's likely Clinton will move closer to that magic number 2,383.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-37663533587301277512016-02-11T12:23:00.001-05:002016-02-11T12:24:44.045-05:00A "Few" Words on the 2016 Democratic Primary and a Push for a New LeftIf you read through this blog's history, you'll see that I was definitely not a supporter of Hillary Clinton in 2008. I was rooting for Obama to run for President from the day I listened to his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and I was elated when he won both the nomination and election. It's been a tough seven (going on eight) years, with plenty of successes, but plenty of disappointments as well. All in all, however, I am happy with the President, and feel that he has restored a modicum of competence to an office that was a disaster in the hands of George W. Bush.<br />
<br />
I also think it's crucial that a Democrat gets to follow an outgoing Democrat in office, the first since Truman replaced Roosevelt in 1945. Doing so will better entrench the gains we've made over the Obama administration, plus it's imperative that any Supreme Court vacancies go to jurists who aren't of the Rehnquist/Scalia/Roberts/Alito mold. It's unlikely that Congress and the President will work together, provided the President is a Democrat. As such, it will take ingenuity and strength to solve many of our outstanding issues in a way that won't require Congressional legislation.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
By now you probably think I am leading up to me stating my support, however reluctant, for Hillary Clinton. After all, she seems more concerned with continuity with President Obama's agenda than Sanders does. She's shown experience in both the realm of legislative and executive experience, and does seem to value pragmatism and accomplishment over "the good fight". Sure, she has shown herself way too comfortable around the Goldman Sachs of the world, and her foreign policy is <i>at best </i>Chickenhawk Lite. But her administration would be a good rendition of Obama 3.0.<br />
<br />
With all that in mind, this isn't an "endorsement"* of Hillary Clinton. Quite the contrary, this is an endorsement of Senator Bernie Sanders, and an argument as to why his candidacy is the first step in something bigger, something more formative than a Presidential election.<br />
<br />
It's not that I'm delusional. Odds are against Sanders beating Clinton for the nomination. The party establishment has so far marched lockstep with Hillary Clinton, with hundreds of superdelegates** already endorsing her. With that support, it makes the math much more difficult for Sanders to win the nomination outright, or to even force a brokered convention***.<br />
<br />
Even if he somehow beats Clinton for the nomination, that just means he's out of the frying pan and into the fire. Would the Clinton supporters join the Sanders team and push to beat Trump/Cruz/Kasich/Rubio/Bush? Or would they sit this one out, a replay of Rockefeller Republicans in 1964, or Daley and the Democratic Machine in 1972? It's highly unlikely Hillary and Bill would campaign vigorously for Sanders, and I have doubts about Obama and Biden doing much, assuming Sanders even would ask for the help. And that doesn't even get in to all of those Clinton surrogates. Democrats are notorious for not helping other Democrats even when they are "good moderates", let alone a "Democratic-Socialist". It's not that it would be impossible, just a much tougher campaign than, say, 2012 or even 2008.<br />
<br />
And even in Sanders wins in November, he's unlikely to have a Democratic Congress. Structural advantages for the GOP in the House, coupled with decades of gerrymandering accomplished thanks to Democrats losing their way on the state level, has left it next to impossible for the Democrats to take back the House without a wave like 2006. The Senate is more achievable, but it still remains unlikely the Democrats will take that back. Even if they do, it will be with such a small margin that very little will be accomplished, at least not that progressives would like too much.<br />
<br />
So with that rough road to victory, and little promise of anything being accomplished afterwards, why do I support Sanders? Quite simply, it's because he coincides with my own views better than Clinton, and because he represents the future of the Left, rather than our rather depressing present.<br />
<br />
Let's face it, the state of the Left in 2016 is not too great. This is especially true if you equate the Democratic party with the left side of the political spectrum****. Both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republicans. While the Senate is within the realm of possibility for the Democrats to take back in 2016, the House is so Gerrymandered and gives the GOP so many structural advantages that to take it back for more than a election or two will take a concerted effort that could take years, even a couple decades. Worse than that, a solid majority of the states are controlled by the Republicans. Not just the usual suspects like Utah and Oklahoma, but even Obama supporting states like Iowa and Wisconsin. Even Illinois, with its Democratic supermajority in the General Assembly, has a Republican governor.<br />
<br />
Sure, there have been some great strides made by the left, particularly in the realm of LGBT rights. Even the most optimistic dreamers in the 1990s would never have thought in two decades the right for gays to marry would be the law of the land, and that full acceptance of gays in the military would have happened. But this victory is precarious, particularly for transgender Americans. Even fairly liberal bastions like Houston have succumbed to specious and unproven lies to enshrine bigotry against this misunderstood and endangered element of our population. It's a legitimate worry that the coalition that pushed for the gay marriage will now unravel when there is still much to do. And these troubles don't even count the opposition, many of whom are still unwilling to accept the law of the land. They will seek to roll back this progress.<br />
<br />
The left, whether through the Democratic party, a new party, or by other democratic means, needs a new strategy. We need to put together a movement, much like the disgruntled mixture of businessman, Birchers, ex-segregationists and the standard-bearers of Nixon's "silent majority" worked to establish the "Reagan Revolution". It needs to be focused on the nation as a whole, so that we can stand up to the Rick Scotts and Paul LePages of the world. We need to replenish the bench (preferably not with DAs who protect kid killing cops) of candidates for not only Congressional races, but for state offices and legislatures. Arguably most important, we need to establish strategy at the local level, to influence the school boards, county boards, city councils, and other local offices which is where much of the legislation and government functions that truly matter to us happens.<br />
<br />
It's not something that can happen overnight. It won't happen in November of 2016, 2018, 2020, or possibly for several elections beyond that. It will take a lot of effort, more than our share of disappointments and defeats, and a hell of lot of tough decisions. It will take a movement, not just one campaign built on incremental change.<br />
<br />
Is this Sanders' goal? In part, I think it is. He's certainly in it to win it at this point, even if early on that may not have been his primary goal. His theory of change is built on the idea of "political revolution", where Americans will rise up and topple the status quo and replace it with a more perfect union. While he argues it will happen this year, I remain skeptical.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, I think he's on the right track. Sanders represents a new way forward, a giant step beyond where Obama has brought the movement, rather than a small step down a precarious, rocky path. We need candidates who are wiling to trust us, and not be so condescending as far too many politicians tend to be. We need candidates who aren't afraid to wear their ideals on their sleeves. Most importantly, we need candidates who revel in being called "Progressive", "Liberal", "Socialist", "Radical", rather than meekly offering dithering equivocation. Having a candidate like Sanders, who unashamedly wears the title "Democratic-Socialist", contend for the Presidency is a great first step.<br />
<br />
Note that I say first step. This is due to something that many progressives seem to not get a handle on. The battle is not won by winning an election. The obstinate fits the right pulled after Obama was elected in 2008 should have shown you that. Frankly the battle will never be over. In this ideologically polarized times, it will likely be necessary for us to win elections to pursue the agenda of the New Left. This means winning 50% + 1 in the U.S. House, up to 60 in the U.S. Senate, and as many governorships and state legislatures as possible. We'll still be open to compromise, and will need to compromise, if only between the various elements of the Democratic party. We should be plenty open to compromise across the aisle as well, provided the compromise is not of a style where only the other side gets anything of worth. <br />
<br />
So do I believe Bernie Sanders can win the nomination and election? Yes. Do I think he will win? No, I don't. My support isn't contingent on him winning the White House, it's more a first step in a much larger strategy, much of which I'll be elaborating on in posts to come. I want him to win as many delegates as possible, give as many victory speeches as he can. I want to let the establishment of the Democratic party know that we on the left aren't happy with the way things are going, and want to see a new direction in the party. Hopefully we can use this leverage to gain some controls on electoral strategy, perhaps even control of the DNC. From there it will be a long road, but one with a worthy destination at its end.<br />
<br />
*As if an endorsement from a blog that nobody reads (and rightfully so) is worth more than the digital paper this is printed on.<br />
<br />
**While Democratic primaries and caucuses are effectively built on a form of proportional representation, they have a extrademocratic set of delegates based on Governors, Congressional members, former Presidents/Vice-Presidents/Speakers of the House, and other party luminaries. The purpose of these delegates is to act as a check on the party voters, so they can't nominate someone outside the purview of the party. It was added to the primary process as consequence of the disastrous McGovern campaign of 1972.<br />
<br />
*** Because of the superdelegates it's highly unlikely a two person race can cause a brokered convention. It would take a third party who can siphon 100-200 (or more) delegates to create a stalemate scenario.<br />
<br />
**** Not all members of the left are Democrats, and not all Democrats are members of the left. However, in this day and age the most conservative Blue Dog in Congress is still to the left of the most liberal Republican. On state and local levels, this isn't quite true, but it still mostly works that the Democrats are Center-Left, and the Republicans are Right, with a small rump of Right-Center/Center-Right in certain states.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-73324319267058575802014-11-05T02:00:00.001-05:002014-11-05T02:57:46.817-05:00Ugh: The 2014 MidtermsSo I'm sitting here in a hotel room (so I have cable for the election) sipping whiskey and just generally trying to process the ass-whupping the Democrats took this midterm election. Yep, there's no denying this was a bad defeat. Forget purple states like Iowa, Colorado, and Florida, all of which Democrats lost key Senate or Governor's races. The Democrats lost governor's seats in reliably Democratic Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland.<br />
<br />
It was a pretty bad night for the men (and women) in blue. The Senate is now in the hands of Mitch McConnell, the Republicans padded their lead in the House, and they continue to control a distressing number of governor's mansions and state legislatures. Of the three stooges (Walker, Scott, and LePage) I was hoping would be shown the door, all three were reelected. Nope, not a fun night.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
And yet, there were some bright spots. Ballot measures were much friendlier to traditionally progressive policies, with red states like Nebraska and Arkansas voting to increase their minimum wages. Other states (and D.C.) passed laws that legalized marijuana or tightened gun control, and Illinois passed several measures (some binding, some not) that would be left leaning. It appears that people like Democratic policies, even if they hate Democrats.<br />
<br />
So what happened? Well, many things.<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Historical Midterm Trends: Let's face it, more years than not the party that holds the White House loses in the midterms. This is even more likely during a President's second term. This is something we've kind of forget in recent years, as 1998 and 2002 bucked those trends. Of course, 1998 was a referendum on Clinton's impeachment, and 2002 was the first post 9-11 election, so special circumstances clearly could be claimed. Add in the fact that so many senate seats were in states that aren't exactly loving the Obama administration, and it's clear things weren't lining up well for the Democrats.</li>
<li>Weak Ass State Democratic Parties: Everyone who wasn't blind could see Pat Quinn was vulnerable. Nobody who had to clean up the mess left by George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich was going to be popular. And despite what some Democrats think, you can't just win the state with only Cook county. 101 of the 102 counties in Illinois went towards Rauner. Durbin, Madigan, and White won fairly easily, so it isn't like the Democrats were completely forbidden in state contests. In Massachusetts, Martha Coakley once again lost an election she should have won. The Democrats in supposedly swing state Ohio barely put up a fight in the state wide elections there, and it's clear Texas is far from being purple, despite the best efforts of Wendy Davis. By far the most underperforming state is Florida. Election after election a state full of Democrats dicks around with subpar candidates, letting criminals like Rick Scott get reelected.</li>
<li>The Midterm turnout problem: This is far from scientific, but I made a note of who mentioned they voted on Facebook. With one or two exceptions, most people in my friends group who posted they voted were conservatives, or at least Republican in nature.Hell, I didn't vote. I had no excuse other than laziness and forgetfulness. The fact is, the conservatives and the olds (who are strongly conservative) always show up. Meanwhile, so many of us on the left, such as the youngs and minorities, are notorious for not showing up in non Presidential years. Until we reverse this trend, midterms are going to be pretty disappointing for us on the left.</li>
<li>Chicken-Shit DLC Triangulation: Grimes was probably going to lose to McConnell in Kentucky no matter what. However, she was not helped by her mealy mouth response about whether or not she voted for the President. Look, I know the President isn't winning too many popularity contests these days. But you know who still has his back? The Democratic base that is notorious for not turning out in midterms. Had she said "I'm a Democrat, so of course I supported my President, even if I don't agree with him on everything" it would have shown the Democratic base in Kentucky that she was a team player. It might have given them some enthusiasm. The idea that Democrats would run away from a very successful, if troubled, President is a mark of shame.</li>
</ol>
<div>
So where do we go from here? Like or it nor, the 2016 speculation has already begun. On the side of the Democrats sits the presumptive nominee in Hillary Clinton. There are some names bandied about, such as Elizabeth Warren (the darling of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party"), Mike "No, I'm not Carcetti from <i>The Wire" </i>O'Malley, and Brian Schweitzer. It's unlikely any of those people will do much to dislodge Clinton, assuming she runs. On the GOP side, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Scott Walker all have clear intentions of entering the race. Chris Christie and Rick Santorum are also around, although Christie's star has faded as of late.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For myself, I'll be going dark for a while again. I've got a big <a href="http://www.walkwithnature2012.com/" target="_blank">Appalachian Trail</a> hike coming up next year, and my eyes are towards achieving this goal for now. However, once I'm back (about eleven months from now), we'll be taking on 2016 and it's pivotal election. Life will go on, the sun will come up, and there will be another election. Remember this feeling, and let it drive you to victory in 2016.</div>
Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-80708098381163078652012-09-06T16:46:00.000-04:002012-09-06T16:46:30.761-04:00Democratic National Convention: Day Two RecapAfter two nights of both conventions being down, the score is:<br />
<br />
Democrats: 2<br />
Republicans: 0 <br />
<br />
And if you broke down the scores it isn't even close. Elizabeth Warren and Bill Clinton came out and made great cases for why the Democrats should not only retain the White House, but gain back control of Congress. Just watch their speeches for yourself<br />
<br />
Here's the future junior senator from Masschusetts:<br />
<br />
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YBtij5dR3dA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br />
<br />
And here's Bill Clinton's hell of a speech:<br />
<br />
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/i5knEXDsrL4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br />
<br />
Tonight Barack Obama will accept the nomination as Democratic candidate for President of the United States. Obviously his speech will be the most anticipated, but there are several other speakers to look forward to, such as Vice President Joe Biden and the always fun Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer.<br />
<br />
As always, we'll be keeping up with the convention on <a href="https://twitter.com/augustprairie">twitter</a>.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-60812182552473270932012-09-05T18:45:00.000-04:002012-09-05T18:45:41.484-04:00Democratic National Convention: Day One Recap<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnwR-DJpWFYb92A3ZlK_IV9OgH7HCvyWHLrsrm2YxoruXQsd7OhxLnNsjrYa7_wdRj52YQ2jxlSnl8ew7WYgcyDHBD6yuUWAc-kd3Bn8CiTYji-hMqUrjD21_8yGuxSoustq-tTySMj1lP/s1600/MichelleObama.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="246" width="400" alt="First Lady Michelle Obama" title="First Lady Michelle Obama" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnwR-DJpWFYb92A3ZlK_IV9OgH7HCvyWHLrsrm2YxoruXQsd7OhxLnNsjrYa7_wdRj52YQ2jxlSnl8ew7WYgcyDHBD6yuUWAc-kd3Bn8CiTYji-hMqUrjD21_8yGuxSoustq-tTySMj1lP/s400/MichelleObama.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
The first day of the Democratic National Convention was a good start, as there were many good speeches and a great tone in general. Compared to the RNC, which felt like a halfhearted meeting at a country club, the DNC was much looser, much smoother, and a much better representation of the United States as a whole.<br />
<br />
If the day had any sort of theme, it was that the Democratic party is proud of Obamacare. Although two years late, it appears the party has finally gotten around to figuring out how to sell what is a complicated, flawed, but ultimately very beneficial piece of legislation.<br />
<br />
Unlike the RNC, the speakers at the DNC actually seemed enthusiastic about supporting their candidate. They spent much more of their time speaking about President Obama and what he can do if re-elected, rather than blathering on about themselves. There were many great speeches from earlier in the night, such as former Ohio governor Ted Strickland, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and NARAL President Nancy Keenan. Even Harry Reid's speech was effective, if not quite the barnburner as later ones would be.<br />
<br />
However, the best speeches by far were the last two. The keynote speaker was San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro. His speech reminded us of Barack Obama's speech at the 2004 DNC in Boston. Be watching for his name, as he is clearly going to be a major player in the Democratic party of the future. Unlike <br />
<br />
If his speech was the last speech night, it would have been an unqualified success. However, Castro's speech was just a warm up for First Lady Michelle Obama. After such a successful night of speeches, the pressure was on her to deliver.<br />
<br />
And deliver she did. It was a speech by a woman that clearly loves her husband, her President, and her country. It rebuked every thing the RNC tried to say about Democrats and President Obama, and did it all without being mean or without directly attacking Mitt Romney. In essence, it made a most compelling case for the President's reelection.<br />
<br />
So now the bar is set for former President Bill Clinton and current President Barack Obama. Given their track record, I think they'll both do alright. We'll have to see if that is true.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-40466461148732206532012-09-03T04:40:00.000-04:002012-09-03T04:40:00.633-04:00Happy Labor Day (and a few words about the Conventions)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjENV9XtQOopDU9Wn7P0rLu4yZNzmlmJXUjUSze3qWbUAyCsx-XmBiCp3nJgNOlksnZrwLb0VPH_2_Cbs2ZlDeuIus8-bkVZ53hwgDxYSSl6KcjtssnDcuuD2-Oz5PtW9WhOEmUhx4kk5OJ/s1600/abe_simpson.jpg" imageanchor="1" title="Abe Simpson, or Clint Eastwood? You decide." alt="Abe Simpson, or Clint Eastwood? You decide." style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="300" width="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjENV9XtQOopDU9Wn7P0rLu4yZNzmlmJXUjUSze3qWbUAyCsx-XmBiCp3nJgNOlksnZrwLb0VPH_2_Cbs2ZlDeuIus8-bkVZ53hwgDxYSSl6KcjtssnDcuuD2-Oz5PtW9WhOEmUhx4kk5OJ/s400/abe_simpson.jpg" /></a></div><br />
We here at August Prairie wish all of you a happy Labor Day. Please think about all the labor movement in America has brought us, from the two day weekend to the forty hour work week. And of course, for some, dental plans.<br />
<br />
We know we never provided a recap of Day Four of the RNC, but we didn't get to see any of it, and frankly what is there to say about Romney's speech? It was dull, it was bland, and it was unremarkable. It was also overshadowed by an angry old man yelling at an invisible man. All in all, a fitting symbol for today's Republican party. Yep, the GOP is now nothing but Mr. Burns, Rev. Lovejoy, that crazy gun shooting Texan, and Grandpa Simpson. I think even Sideshow Bob would blanch at the current state of the Republican party (not that we want him and his monstrous feet on our side).<br />
<br />
Stay tuned tomorrow for our coverage of the Democratic National Convention, where we promise less cries of BULLSHIT will probably be heard. Even if those may be deserved at times. <br />
<br />
Until then, enjoy this song from one of the greatest episodes of <i>The Simpsons</i>. Oh, and a bit of "Classical Gas" as well.<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aj5OT3z1VGA" width="420"></iframe>Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-76663214565090328752012-08-30T03:51:00.000-04:002012-08-30T03:51:58.231-04:002012 Republican National Convention: Day Three RecapThree (well, two) days down, one day left to go. The big day, the one where we finally get the "tall, somewhat charming" fellow that is the GOP nominee for President. I'm guessing for his senior staff, it couldn't be a day too soon, considering how Ryan and Christie did their best to overshadow him. <br />
<br />
However, that recap is for tomorrow. Today is about yesterday, which was all about "We Can Change That".<br />
<br />
(Paul Ryan tells another lie about Barack Obama and Medicare)<br />
<br />
Hmm, it appears we were interrupted by Paul Ryan. Let's hope that doesn't happen again. Anyways, night three of the convention was a showcase for some senators, a few more governors (former and current), and two really annoying Attorneys General from Florida and Georgia. With Senator John "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" McCain and former Secretary of State Condolezza Rice speaking, it was also a night for neoconning it up in regards to Foreign Affairs. They also finally recognized that the Bushes existed, with a short tribute video that we unfortunately missed. For a second there I thought the GOP had forgotten that there was a President from their party in office between Clinton and Obama. It appears they've still forgotten about NCLB, Cutting taxes while fighting two wars, and creating Medicare Part D, as well as turning those Clinton surpluses into deficits. You gotta feel sorry for the poor saps, don't ya?<br />
<br />
(Paul Ryan blames the 30 Year War on Barack Obama, despite the fact that it started centuries before he was President)<br />
<br />
Ugh, will he quit that? We're getting tired of all the interruptions, even more so because they are so damn full of lies. Well, where were we? Oh yeah, we were talking about Foreign Affairs night at the GOP. Condi Rice appears to be fairly intelligent, and I doubt she believes most of the crap her party spews. Were we facing a world of the Eisenhower or Kennedy administrations, she probably would be an excellent foreign affairs specialist. But like a lot of her peers in that field, they were trained for a world with the USSR, and just can't handle that it is gone. They can't work without that black hat to glare at. As we saw in Iraq and may yet see in Iran and/or Syria, this confusion and angst has caused us great problems. But hey, the speech was entertaining and probably the least offensive thing spewed forth by a professional political figure at the convention.<br />
<br />
(Paul Ryan takes what was Republican obstruction over the debt ceiling, and blames it on President Obama)<br />
<br />
GORRAMIT, PAUL RYAN! WILL YOU STOP INTERRUPTING US WITH THIS DRIVEL. CLEARLY IT WAS YOU AND YOUR ILK IN THE HOUSE THAT CAUSED OUR CREDIT RATING TO BE LOWERED. THE AGENCY EVEN SAID OBSTRUCTIONISM WAS THE SOURCE. AUGGHGHGHGHGARGLEBARGLEFOOFERAWBlahagoighewagpvhapgewgeagphewpgoewuepw9<br />
<br />
-----------<br />
<br />
(SIGH)<br />
<br />
OK, we're better now. We've muted any way Paul Ryan could interrupt us, and we've triple locked the doors, so he won't try to come in and interrupt as well. Now back to the coverage. Man, wasn't Pawlenty and Portman both boring and disingenuous. A real winning combination there, ain't it. And of course there was also Mike Huckabee, and the birther Attorney General from Georgia, and that governor of New Mexico who balanced her budget without raising taxes (in part with Federal monies, but she forgot to mention that). I'm sure she's working real hard to get that blue meth off of the streets of Albuquerque. <br />
<br />
And now on to the centerpiece of the night, the speech by Paul Rya-<br />
<br />
(Paul Ryan tells same lie about Barack Obama and Medicare from before)<br />
<br />
GAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHSCREWCRSERPWWTWEPGUWPEWPTWPEOSPCREWPUPWPREWPUPSFPFPUPGWDJFPWEOUPWEOJGFPLGDPOGUWEPOUEPOR42FGPWOEWEU$#$$PGPDJGPWOUPTOEWUJVMppgoaugpoeuepwotapotewuoagpagaowtepwpagmagowewepwea<br />
<br />
OK, enough of this crap, that's all for this recap. See you tomorrow for the recap of Mitt Romney's speech. I'm sure Chris Matthews will love it, then five minutes later hate it.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-72218693950607524402012-08-29T17:18:00.000-04:002012-08-29T17:18:32.049-04:002012 Republican National Convention Recap: Day TwoThe theme for Day Two (effectively Day One) of the Republican National Convention was "We Built It". To me, that seemed like an odd choice, as it sounds awful close to the Obama campaigns theme. Of course, what they really mean by it is "I Built It", a response to the incorrect assumption based upon heavily edited comments from Obama that made it look like he said small business owners didn't build their company.* If you were to pick the theme based upon the small business owners that spoke yesterday, the appropriate theme would have been "We Built It with Government Assistance and Contracts". <br />
<br />
Another theme would be "We're the Republican governors, and we'd make MUCH better Presidents than this idiot." These governors liked to tout their record, while trying to make the contrasting point that Obama is a failure. On top of that balancing act, they also had to say all of this in spite of either contradictory evidence, or the fact that their state's revival was due in part to Federal funds or the auto bailout.<br />
<br />
The crown jewel of these governor speeches was the keynote address by New Jersey governor Chris Christie. In many ways it resembled the speech given by then Illinois senate candidate Barack Obama in 2004, albeit with a meaner and more divisive tone.** Effectively it was a speech that touted the speaker far more than the Presidential candidate it was supposed to support. The result was a speech that overshadowed Mitt Romney, who was clearly not impressed by it as he sat there watching it awkwardly. There is little doubt that Christie's speech was more about launching his 2016 GOP nomination campaign.<br />
<br />
Looking forward to tonight's line up, it appears there will be plenty more governors speaking, as well as a cavalcade of senators. This all will lead up to the speech by the Republican candidate for Vice President Paul Ryan, where I assume he will try to play down his own budget ideas, while totally winking to the crowd that he still will push for those ideas.<br />
<br />
Like last night, we here at August Prairie will be live tweeting about the convention, so if you haven't <a href="https://twitter.com/AugustPrairie">followed us</a> yet on Twitter, please go do so now. We'll wait.<br />
<br />
As for Thursday, it is unlikely that there will be any live coverage, at least not early in the evening. Real life has imposed itself, and we'll be on the road for much of the day. Hopefully we'll be back to cover the main event, which will be the speech by the candidate himself. No matter what, we'll definitely have a recap of at least that speech come Friday.<br />
<br />
*Obama was talking about roads, bridges, and helpful teachers, the GOP likes to cut that part of his speech out. Note that they don't show the video of him saying it, as that would clearly show the editing job.<br />
<br />
**It also wasn't anywhere near as great as a speech as the 2004 DNC speech. You can't doubt Christie's energy, though. You can doubt his sense in killing needed infrastructure upgrades, while giving away large tax breaks to the wealthy in NJ.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-73983811764623209482012-08-28T09:00:00.000-04:002012-08-28T09:00:00.205-04:002012 Republican National Convention Recap: Day OneThanks to Tropical Storm Isaac, which at one time appeared to be heading straight for Tampa, but instead is heading much farther west, the first day of the RNC was rather short. Nevertheless, in just about five minutes of time it already had me wondering if covering this Klassic Komedy Kavalcade* is a good idea.<br />
<br />
Perhaps it was those annoying "debt clocks"** that they had, including one that started when RNC Chair Reince Priebus*** gaveled the session to order (before immediately adjourning until later today). Perhaps it was the blinding whiteness of hundreds of puffy red faced middle aged men and women that was giving me a headache. Whatever it was, I was not looking forward to day two.<br />
<br />
At least Trump won't be showing up, so there's that.<br />
<br />
Stay tuned for more as the day continues. <br />
<br />
*As there will be plenty of dog-whistles being used in the speeches this week, I figure I'd use a not so subtle half-assed Simpsons reference in response.<br />
<br />
**Seriously, where the hell were these clocks when <strike>St. Gipper the Jellybean King</strike> Reagan and Bush 43 were loading up our deficits? Oh that's right, debt is bad only if a Democrat is President.<br />
<br />
***When your party chair's name sounds like either a) a tertiary character from <i>Star Wars</i> or b) a shampoo used to wash the mane of the Romney's dressage horse, you probably are going to have some problems. I know, I know, this is glib and unfair. Because the GOP has never made fun of the President's name.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-71716578183860113842012-08-28T00:52:00.000-04:002012-08-28T00:52:11.288-04:00How we got here, Part 2: 1824Remember how I said that 1796 was the beginning of two party politics in the United States? Well, it was, but only the first beginning. You see, after 1800, the Federalists, always little more than a minority party primarily centered around the elites of New England, started to wane in importance. Sure, they ran candidates for the Presidency up through the 1816 election, and a few held on even longer in Congress and the Supreme Court. However the party's power had diminished as Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe each served two terms. By 1820, James Monroe ran virtually unopposed for his reelection, with one elector voting for John Quincy Adams. It was the "Era of Good Feeling", and it appeared that our partisan divide had been eliminated.<br />
<br />
Of course, just because everybody called themselves "republicans" didn't mean that they were in harmony on every issue. As the "American System", a combination of tariffs and internal improvements, was pushed by leaders such as John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, many southern and western leaders pushed back, arguing that tariffs hurt their constituents, and that internal improvements were the domain of the states, not the Federal government. In the middle of these fights came the contentious debate over the admittance of Missouri, and the ultimate compromise which brought Maine and Missouri into the Union, and kept a nation divided over the issue of slavery together for another three decades. Everybody was a part of one party, sure, but as the 1820s dragged on there became a clear division between two factions of that party.<br />
<br />
Thus, as the nation came together to choose it's next President in 1824, it was clear that a near unanimous vote was unlikely. In fact, quite the opposite was to occur. Four candidates won electoral votes in the race, with Adams and Andrew Jackson, a war hero and lawyer from Tennessee being the two clear favorites. Jackson won the popular vote and the electoral vote, but did not reach the necessary majority of the latter. For the second time in our country's history, a Presidential election headed to the House of Representatives.<br />
<br />
As per Constitutional rules, only the three candidates with the most electoral votes were allowed to be selected by the House. Therefore, the House could choose from Adams, Jackson, and William Crawford of Georgia. The fourth major candidate, Henry Clay of Kentucky, was left out. However, as he was Speaker of the House, it was likely he would play a major role in the selection of the next president.<br />
<br />
Unlike the contentious 1800 House vote for President, the 1824 vote picked a president on the first vote. The winner was Adams, who beat Jackson and Crawford 13-7-4. Clay, who agreed with Adams on his plan of tariffs and internal improvements and did not like Jackson at all, played a big role. He put all of his support behind Adams and was a big reason that the Massachusetts politician took the office his father had held previously. Whether part of a "corrupt bargain", or because Adams thought Clay was the best man for the job, Clay would become Adams' Secretary of State.<br />
<br />
With good reason, Jackson was incensed. He had won the popular and electoral vote, albeit with pluralities instead of majorities. For him and his supporters, it was clear that Clay had bargained the Presidency for the job as Secretary of State. For the next four years this would be their rallying cry, as they were determined to right that wrong in 1828. Jackson supporters, which included a large amount of poor and middling Americans who could vote now that property restrictions were falling away, started calling themselves Democrats. Adams, Clay, and their supporters chose instead to call themselves National Republicans. Partisanship was back in America in a big way.<br />
<br />
<i>Next Time: Anti-Masons get their trip into the history books, as the birth of nominating conventions come about in 1832</i><br />
<br />
The source for this post is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1824_United_States_Presidential_Election">Wikipedia article</a> on the 1824 Presidential election. Yeah, I used Wikipedia as a source. This is a little read political blog, not a scholarly paper. Also, I know for a fact that Napoleon helped Adams make his agreement with Henry Clay and Magneto.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-20148644899575678142012-08-24T09:00:00.000-04:002012-08-26T20:54:59.709-04:00UPDATED: Apologies in Advance to My Neighbors: August Prairie Covers the 2012 RNCAssuming it isn't washed away by Tropical Storm/Hurricane Isaac, August Prairie will be covering the Republican National Convention. No, not in Tampa, but from the comfort of our living room. We can't promise our coverage will be thorough, entertaining, or even coherent. Honestly, it may just be a string of profanities and drunk ramblings. However, we do promise to try to try and give meaningful coverage.<br />
<br />
We'll be live blogging each of the main speakers, such as the keynote by New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Vice-Presidential candidate and Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, and of course the acceptance speech by former Massachusetts governor Willard "Mitt" Romney. Expect other posts throughout each afternoon and evening, and for stuff that is too ephemeral or unworthy of a major post can be found via <a href="https://twitter.com/augustprairie" target="_blank">twitter</a>.<br />
<br />
Because I'm an effete, arugula nibbling islamofasciocommunosocioanticolonial community organizer with a fancy-schmancy Opossum League degree*, I'll be watching MSNBC's coverage, with occasional jaunts to CNN or CSPAN if MSNBC is showing Pat Buchanan, Tweety Matthews is having feelings go down his leg, or they switch to a prison lockup show. You couldn't pay me enough (okay, if I were getting paid MAYBE) to watch Fox News.<br />
<br />
Please note that short of him announcing a floor challenge to Romney, or that he was a Democratic plant all along, we will NOT be covering whatever that fat-fingered vulgarian Donald Trump has to say.<br />
<br />
UPDATE: Obviously, there won't be any coverage on Monday, because the RNC cancelled its Monday session due to weather concerns. We'll see if there are further changes because of Isaac. Stay tuned...<br />
<br />
*To everyone but me, this is known as the Ohio Valley Conference. GO EIU PANTHERS!Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-72955658862619882862012-08-23T01:40:00.000-04:002012-08-23T01:41:36.547-04:00How we got here: A history of partisan politics in AmericaFor about twenty years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the vast majority of the leaders of the young United States of America attempted to rise above partisan politics. It wasn't that they agreed with each other (far from it), but more that as "gentlemen" they were supposed to be above the rough, seemingly destructive nature of party politics. Sure, there had been an informal division between supporters of the Constitution (Federalists) and those who had doubts about parts, or even the entire document (Anti-Federalists). Still, these groups were far from the nineteenth century parties, let alone our modern concept of parties. <br />
<br />
By the time George Washington set a very important precedent by stepping down at the end of his second term, partisanship was already well entrenched. On one side were the Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. There power was based in the aspiring aristocracy of the Northeast, with a much smaller base centered around the lowland plantations of South Carolina. On the whole, they were proponents of a strong activist government, a central bank, and good relations with Great Britain. They were suspicious of too much democracy, rattled by the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania, as well as the deteriorating mess of the French Revolution. <br />
<br />
The other group would eventually be known as the Democratic-Republican. Led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, their power base were the farmers and most (but not all) of the plantation owners of the south, as well as many of the business owners and merchants in the Middle Atlantic and New England states. They were generally in favor of smaller government, and shunned most of the pomp and ceremony held dear by Federalists. Most of them were skeptical of a central bank, mistrustful of its power over the economy. They tended to favor the French, seeing them as fellow republicans amidst a sea of absolutists and aristocrats. Unlike the Federalists, they were incredibly wary of standing armies, and believed commerce between republics would ultimately end the need for war.<br />
<br />
The election of 1796 was the first contested Presidential election in the history of the United States. At the time only nine of the sixteen states at the time bound their electoral college votes to the popular vote. Just a small percentage of the population could vote even in the states where it mattered, in most cases only white property owning men 21 years or older. John Adams won the most electoral votes and Thomas Jefferson came in second. Under the Constitution at the time this made him Vice-President. As Adams' term went on, it was clear that having a hostile Vice President was not exactly the best idea, particularly in a partisan world.<br />
<br />
As the European wars continued, and both French and British fleets harassed American merchant ships, tensions continued to rise. At various times it appeared the USA would go to war against Great Britain, France, or both. The Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition acts, which led Madison and Jefferson to push for the theory of nullification, first by the young state of Kentucky, and later by the Old Dominion of Virginia. By the election of 1800, which would pit Adams and Jefferson against each other again, it was clear partisan politics were here to stay.<br />
<br />
Over the next couple of weeks, as the Republicans congregate in Tampa and the Democrats meet in Charlotte, I'll be taking a trip through our nation's tumultuous history of partisan politics. My main purpose for this is to shed some light on how the modern parties became what they are. I figure the best way to do this is to divide posts up by various election years that I find most important. Note that these years don't always line up with Presidential election years, or with the most obvious years. However, they are the years which to me seem most pivotal in the development of our two party system. Two of the years will be midterm elections, harbingers of much larger developments for the waves that would happen the next Presidential elections. Since they are so recent, and we have yet to see their last impact, I'll tackle 2006, 2008, and 2010 together.<br />
<br />
One final note before I give you the list of years I'll be writing about. Clearly this blog is tinted a deep, dark blue. However, I have no intention of clouding these posts with any sort of judgement, merely to document what led to these shifts, and what impact they would have for years to come. The one exception is the last post, which will detail where we sit here in 2012, and where I see things going. <br />
<br />
And now, here are the years we'll be visiting.<br />
<br />
Part 1: Introduction and 1796 (This post)<br />
Part 2: A Return to Partisanship: 1824<br />
Part 3: The Legacy of the Anti-Masons: 1832<br />
Part 4: The Junior Party is Born: 1856<br />
Part 5: Silver and Gold: 1896<br />
Part 6: Progressives Ascendant: 1912<br />
Part 7: The Business of Americans is Business: 1920<br />
Part 8: The New Deal Coalition Emerges: 1930<br />
Part 9: The Great Southern Shift Begins: 1964<br />
Part 10: The Rise of the Rabid Right: 1978<br />
Part 11: The New Democrats and Triangulation: 1992<br />
Part 12: Bush v. Gore: 2000<br />
Part 13: A Partisan Roller Coaster Ride: 2006, 2008, and 2010<br />
Part 14: Where We Stand Today: 2012<br />
<br />
Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-79661377984008546592012-07-31T01:43:00.000-04:002012-08-23T01:47:52.864-04:00August Prairie, Round 2This evening I watched one of my favorite movies, <i>1776</i>. It is a musical from 1972 based on the Broadway show of the same name. As made somewhat obvious from the title, it is about the men who gathered together in Philadelphia in June and July, 1776 to debate whether or not to declare independence from Great Britain. Although many delegates have parts, the main characters are Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and especially John Adams. Of all the members of the 2nd Continental Congress, Adams has to be my favorite. Sure, everyone loves witty old Dr. Franklin, and as he was a tall intellectual, I can relate to Jefferson. Adams, of course, was known for being sarcastic, caustic, and absolutely committed to independence for the assembled colonies. For months on end, he kept trying to push the Congress to accept in law what had happened in practice: That we were a free and separate nation from the British Empire. Here is the opening scene of the movie which shows Adams berating the Congress for delaying a vote or even debate for independence. <iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/A3TGbKfkwGA" width="420"></iframe><br />
My friends, family, and occasional neighbors have likely had a similar reaction to my frequent political rants. I can imagine as I reach a crescendo of "GOOD GOD WHY CAN'T THESE PEOPLE BLAH BLAH ROMNEY BLAH BLAH BACHMANN BLAH BLAH McCARTHY BLAH BLAH RATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY" that they are thinking "Sit Down, Andrew". As annoying as Adams could be, it didn't change the fact he was right. Of course, his caustic nature certainly hurt his cause, as that crucial vote for independence took more than principled indignation to get done. It took diplomatic skill, agonizing compromises (thank you, South Carolina), and a crazy 80 mile dash by Caesar Rodney to get it done. Far too often I've lashed into long diatribes on this and that, usually in the presence of my family. It has reached the point where they have gotten sick of it, and for good reason. Sometimes it is because I'm preaching to the choir. Others times it is because I 'm being so antagonistic that I trigger a defense mechanism to redouble on your views, even if they may be unsound. I consider myself a strong believer in nuance and complexity, and consider viewpoints differing from my own to be just as valid. However, when I am talking, or discussing issues, I can be awfully forceful and combative. The biggest reason I do this is because often I'm too willing to abandon my position when some other point of view comes along. Because of this, it is hard for me to stand my ground, so I force myself to take a harder line in order to keep from being too wishy-washy and indecisive. Also, I'm apparently intimidating to some people, which seems ridiculous to me (I've never seen myself that way). However, I suppose a large guy who looks like he has a scowl on his face and can make his voice rather loud can be a bit imposing.<br />
<br />
After my sister finally confronted me on this, I decided to make an effort to stop with the stump speeches when at my parents. It's made things less contentious when I'm there, although it has been hard biting my tongue a few times these past few weeks. Of course, it could be worse, as we're still in silly season. Once the campaigns REALLY start (i.e. after the conventions) it will be harder, especially if they have the news on when I am there. As I have given up annoying my family, and I still maintain my internet rule #1*, this blog is my one major source of political discussion. I've not done a damn thing with it since 2010, and I won't be doing much with it for the next few weeks.<br />
<br />
Frankly, absolutely nothing that happens during this time of year will impact the election in November, at least not in regards to the news. Until both parties give their nomination bashes in Tampa and Charlotte, we're all just pissing in the wind. But once Romney mentions Reagan 85 times per minute in his speech, and Obama tries to evoke the memory of President Bartlet in the hearts of disillusioned liberals, there just isn't much to write. So other than maybe a few posts about the Civil War, or on governance or politics independent of our current situation. But come August 27**, game on.<br />
<br />
One final note: On my <a href="http://www.walkwithnature2012.com/search?updated-max=2012-07-12T14:26:00-05:00&max-results=7">hiking blog</a> I discuss a very influential hike at Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite. In it I mention making it a life mission to work on solving some of our most vexing ecological and environmental issues. While I don't have any plan or anything set up at this time, I will be sticking to this vow. As Walk With Nature is a hiking blog (with a bit of nature), this will likely be the place where that mission will begin. Please stay tuned for further developments.<br />
<br />
*THOU SHALL NOT DISCUSS POLITICS ON FACEBOOK. This even extends to posting links to this blog. I kind of wish I'd violate this, but I'm keeping politics out of Facebook, as it and politics mix like oil and water. Tumblr, however, well that is fair game.<br />
<br />
**The start of the Republican National Convention. I can't promise I'll watch all of it, but I can promise I'll try to watch some of it. Remember, conventions are mainly meant to fire up the base, and as I am so fucking far from the base of the GOP, the speeches will not be targeted towards me. I imagine I'll have an easier time with the DNC.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-33459407986862021182010-11-11T14:14:00.003-05:002010-11-11T14:32:54.920-05:00Let the Tax Cuts ExpireMr. President,<br /><br />I'm a middle class taxpayer. I appreciate that you, Mr. Biden, and most of the Democrats in Congress have done to help stabilize the economy. I truly believe you are trying to work the best possible solution you can. However, I severely disagree with extending the Bush tax cuts for all, and would be willing to sacrifice additional money out of my pocket if it meant securing a longer term victory here.<br /><br />I'm aware the situation looks bad. Conservative Democrats and the Republicans have done their best to back you into a corner to support extending those irresponsible tax cuts. You're humbled by the results from November 2, and feel that maybe the Republicans have a point. Also, you feel throwing out the middle cut tax cuts just because the rich get to keep theirs is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. I can see your point, and in some ways can see the validity of this decision.<br /><br />However, that doesn't change the fact that these tax cuts are irresponsible. At a time when sooo many people are running around yelling about OMGZ!!!! TEH DEFICIT OMGZ!!!, they don't seem to care about ending one of the biggest causes of that deficit: a stupid tax cut rammed through by President Bush in the middle of a long and expensive conflict.<br /><br />Use your constitutional prerogative, and let these tax cuts expire. Will you be excoriated by The Village? Probably. Will tea partiers and Fox News sluts and Evan Bayh say mean things about you? Yeah. Of course, its not like these things don't happen already, even when you did cut taxes. The stimulus package was heavy on tax cuts, but that didn't prevent 90% of Americans from realizing that you had actually cut their taxes. They'll think you are a tax and spend liberal no matter what you do, so show real leadership, and take on Boehner and his friends on this one.<br /><br />The only reason why this wouldn't be a good idea is if Congress shows a likelihood of overriding your veto. And maybe that's why Axelrod sent up the white flag in his interview. I hope not, because that shows Congress has completely given into ignorance, and the path to recovery grows ever dimmer.<br /><br />But failing that scenario, pick a fight with the GOP (and the Conservative Democrats) on this one. Take your case to the American people, and accept that some may hate you, if only for a while. Make the GOP own the situation, and pressure them to come to the table to work out real tax reform that truly benefits the middle class.<br /><br />Leadership is oftentimes about seizing the moment, zigging when conventional wisdom says you zag. You understood that during your campaign, but at times seem to have forgotten that while in the White House, focusing on smaller technical things, rather than the bigger picture. You stood up and did the right thing regarding the AIG bonuses, as bad for PR as that decision was. I am confident you know what you are doing, but hope I am missing something if you fail to take this opportunity.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-82922300145805325822010-08-31T21:48:00.004-04:002010-08-31T22:43:06.092-04:00Where do We Go From Here?You'd think tonight's address by the President about the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a reason to celebrate. After all, it is the result those of us who opposed this action since 2003 have been looking for. Even with 50,000 "advisers", plus thousands of contractors, left in Iraq, it should be a victory for us.<br /><br />However, I can't take solace in this milestone. At best it is just a partial correction of one of our nation's biggest foreign policy blunder, another step on the long road to atonement. At worst its just a way for us to escape the situation before it collapses like Saigon in 1975. This small piece of good news is dwarfed by the fears of another recession, an absolutely dreadful employment picture, and the toxic sludge of an overheated political environment. And oh yeah, we're still stuck in a dire situation in Afghanistan, the "good" war that we had supposedly won when we started the "adventure" in Iraq.<br /><br />When Obama was elected in November 2008, I thought we had won a great victory. When Keith Olbermann announced Obama was projected to go above 270, the pop-culture romantic in me viewed the moment like it was the scene in <span style="font-style: italic;">Return of the King </span>where Gandalf reacts to The One Ring being destroyed. It truly felt like the battle had been won.<br /><br />Instead, it was a deceptive moment. The battle hadn't been won, but rather had just begun. Like it or not, the other side wasn't going to accept the inevitability of a new era of responsible governance tilted to the left. Nor were they going to reassess their party and return to the roots of Lincoln and Roosevelt. Instead, the GOP noise machine led by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh amped up the crazy, and the inmates took over the asylum. Relatively sensible Republicans, such as Charlie Crist, were chased out of the party in favor of radicals such as Marco Rubio and Sharon Angle. Realizing they were fighting for survival of their cult of Reaganomics, they dug in and decided to gum up the Senate with petty politics.<br /><br />The President and the Democrats in Congress have done a lot. They've passed bills, imperfect though they may be, that are trying to fix our nation's health care and financial messes. Roads and infrastructure across the country have benefited from a necessary, if too small, stimulus package. Things have been accomplished, despite the cries on DailyKos and firedoglake to the contrary.<br /><br />Despite these victories, the Democrats are poised to get their asses kicked come November. Some of the most pessimistic predictions state that both the House and Senate will fall back into the hands of the Republicans. Personally, I think the Democrats will maintain their majorities, albeit with much smaller margins. Of course, some of those new Republicans may be folks like Sharon Angle.<br /><br />Personally, I think this all goes back to the fact that Democrats in Congress seem almost apologetic that they are Democrats. They should be trumpeting the virtues of Health Care and Financial Regulation, instead of sheepishly admitting they voted for these. If they voted for these policies, they should own them. Its time to go on the offensive, and not just pointing out that your party is less dangerous than the other one. I know it seems counter-intuitive to champion that which is unpopular, but it is partially unpopular because the message was dictated by the opposition. The only way to cut through that cloud is to attack it.<br /><br />I'm aware I haven't done as much as I should have. Sitting here writing blog posts does little to advance the cause. I've donated a few bucks here and there to some candidates and groups like Emily's List, but have yet to volunteer to help build on that 2008 victory. I intend to do something about that, and will let you know what that is.<br /><br />We are stuck in a drop-down, drag-out battle for the soul of this country. If we don't want the Michele Bachmanns and Sarah Palins and Marco Rubios running this country, we better get to work. Even if November results in a defeat for us, we must continue the fight. So to answer the question posed by the title of the article, we will walk through the fire, ever forward, tough though it may be.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-46283210215367888092010-07-20T21:09:00.002-04:002010-07-20T21:49:16.064-04:00Why Gay Marriage Should Be LegalI will say it now and unequivocally: I am a strong proponent of gay marriage. There is no good reason for it not to be legal, and is not legal due to a media and political culture built on hating "them", and a mixture of political cowardice and realism from those who are more friendly to the GLBT community.<br /><br /> I just cannot see how anyone who truly believes in love or the value of marriage would deny it to others. Look at it through the eyes of a parent, how could you deny your son or daughter the ability to be happy, to be treated like the human and American citizen they are, with all rights and responsibilities that entitles them to? The thought that hate and ignorance would blind you to putting yourself in the shoes of those wishing to get married is beyond me.<br /><br />I'm aware that you might stand pat on this issue because an ancient book has a few lines of scripture against homosexuality. I'm sure you keep sabbath, ritually butcher your meat, and feel slavery is OK, right? Believing in the legal right of homosexuals to enter into the mutual business partnership that is marriage is compatible with not sanctifying the marriage in your church. If two men wish to make their commitment legal, that has little to do with how God will deal with their lives. To me this smacks of determining the works of God, and thus is attempting to explain the unexplainable.<br /><br />But won't this lead to ghost/horse marriage, or the legalization of polygamy? Of course not, don't be thick. Those of us on the left of this issue don't quibble over the number allowed in the partnership, just the gender of the parties. The idea that giving those nice next door neighbors who own the antique shop the right to marriage would lead to Mr. Ed and Rick Santorum getting hitched is just ridiculous.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I understand the reality of the political situation that has kept Democrats from acting on this. The other side seems to be doing an excellent job of fomenting misinformation, and are passionate in their misguided beliefs. To reach too far on this issue risked a major backlash, and not just by Republicans. There has been more support of civil unions, mainly because it defuses the emotional power and resonance of "marriage". Still, its not the same thing, and amounts to "separate but equal".<br /><br />Before Prop 8 passed in 2008, it appeared things were changing for the better. While things are getting better (DADT might finally die its well-deserved death), the fight is far from over. Those who are against the rights of our homosexual friends are powerful, passionate, and eager to fight that which frightens (and confuses) them. The best way for us to succeed is getting like minded individuals elected to our state and Federal legislatures.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-13957779551464478952010-06-22T23:03:00.003-04:002010-06-22T23:21:44.109-04:00Mr. Olbermann, please read up on Your Civil War HistoryDear Mr. Olbermann,<br /><br />Although I think you made some good points in your <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/6/22/878512/-In-regards-to-Keith-Olbermanns-special-comments-tonight....UPDATED">Special Comment</a> tonight, you really goofed up on your Civil War History. John Pope did not replace George McClellan atop the Union Army after Antietam. Here are the ways that is incorrect:<br /><br />1) After Antietam, McClellan was replaced by Ambrose Burnside, not John Pope. Pope was on his way to the frontier of Minnesota by that time, as he had lost the disastrous battle of 2nd Manassas.<br /><br />2) When Pope was brought East, he wasn't technically replacing McClellan. They both had independent commands. Effectively Pope's command became the primary focus of maneuvers against the Army of Northern Virginia, and he was bolstered by plenty of McClellan's troops. After Lee, Longstreet, Jackson and their troops humiliated Pope, McClellan regained control of the theater.<br /><br />3) The battle of Antietam was not a "disaster". It was a strategic victory for the Union that was tactically a draw. True, it is arguable that had McClellan sent in the V Corps in the center of the line, they might have won a victory. However, that is a debatable point, and is hardly a disaster. Lincoln didn't remove McClellan because of the result of the battle, he removed McClellan because he refused to move against Lee before winter would shut down campaigning.<br /><br />I know your point didn't care about the success of Pope, but it wasn't the best example. Pope was an awful general, and Lincoln's aides were right to be skeptical. I suppose Joe Hooker, who had his own little controversy over civilian control of the military when he was named to replace Ambrose Burnside, would be a better example. In that case Lincoln kept him on the job after his comments about the necessity of a military dictator, while chastising him for those words.<br /><br />You are better than that, Mr. Olbermann. What's more, YOU KNOW YOU ARE BETTER THAN THAT.<br /><br />Its been 1,592 days since something happened 1,592 days ago. Good night and good luck. Don't stay tuned for the Rachel Maddow Show, as she is on MSNBC and not this infrequently updated blog.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-7799938149496319922010-04-21T00:44:00.006-04:002010-04-21T01:00:29.312-04:00A Very Controversial ComicWARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING WARNING<br /><br />BELOW THIS MESSAGE IS A VERY CONTROVERSIAL COMIC.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />I WARNED YOU....<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />TURN AWAY IF YOU WISH...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />HERE IT IS. DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG0bV3mUO8h3CmMV6SiWyh5PWSF238ZKBvaV1NsYwUFdpoCFfVqaBg-FzkKCEAzcac2SKD99jzPDpnfM_Y8_8LNouy4b6PhZyFyDapNMu82exUPdKVL6kA2vfunHVKN4dZqMPj7lEcBVB1/s1600/controversialcomic.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 268px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiG0bV3mUO8h3CmMV6SiWyh5PWSF238ZKBvaV1NsYwUFdpoCFfVqaBg-FzkKCEAzcac2SKD99jzPDpnfM_Y8_8LNouy4b6PhZyFyDapNMu82exUPdKVL6kA2vfunHVKN4dZqMPj7lEcBVB1/s400/controversialcomic.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5462447841349546434" border="0" /></a><br />OMG, did I just do that?<br /><br />Man, that was so controversial.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3181000168467057999.post-75304042204414389852010-04-12T19:36:00.003-04:002010-04-12T21:49:20.618-04:00On Memorializing the Largest Insurrection in the History of the United States"As governor of Virginia, I declare April to be American Civil War History Month. The American Civil War is our nation's great tragedy, a terrible conflict that left our state and our nation in tatters. To understand the Commonwealth of Virginia you must understand the causes, events, and consequences of that brutal affair. "<br /><br />That's all Governor McDonnell had to say to make his recent proclamation relevant, helpful, and non-controversial. Instead he chose to name the month <span style="font-style: italic;">Confederate </span>History Month, which is most controversial. At best it was a horribly misguided attempt by a governor to score points with his political base. At worst it was the intentional perpetuation of the "The Lost Cause", a nod to the fact that he felt the wrong side one at Appomattox.<br /><br />I'm not here as an "Enlightened" Yankee trying to show how much better than he is than those damn Southerners. The Union states weren't much better than Southern states in regards to racial equality, and many in the North certainly profited from the slave-based southern economy. For the reprehensible Jim Crow laws in the south, the north had plenty of their own shameful acts (Sunset Laws, Black Laws, etc...). One cannot forget some of the harshest racism this side of Mississippi during the Civil Rights era took place in Chicago and Boston. No part of this country is excused from the dark parts of our history.<br /><br />Before I go any further, however, I must state that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. Sure, the conversation can be much more complicated, incorporating minute and archaic debates of state rights, tariffs, and the Industrial Revolution. The fact still remains all of those arguments are related to the fact that the South was built upon a land heavy, cash light economy that worked solely because of slave labor. Every one of the other issues exclusive of slavery would never have led to war.<br /><br />While the U.S. Constitution never mentioned slavery by name, the Confederate constitution made sure it wasn't ambiguous on the subject, most explicitly in the following text:<br /><br />"<i>No <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder" title="Bill of attainder">bill of attainder</a>, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]"<br /></i><br />Other than making the presidency a six year single term, and giving the president a line item veto, this was the largest difference between it and the U.S. Constitution. Slavery was essential to the the existence of the Confederacy, and to argue otherwise is wrong. Sure, some southerners such as Patrick Cleburne suggested enlisting slaves in exchange for their freedom. However, the policy didn't gain any steam in the Richmond until the desperate end of the war.<br /><br />I don't doubt that there were plenty of people who fought in the South who didn't give a damn about the slaves. I am aware that people in those days viewed themselves as Virginians, Alabamans, or Georgians first, and Americans second. In their mind they weren't committing treason, and may have considered those (like George Thomas) who chose country over state to be the true traitors. That doesn't change the fact that secession has been determined to be illegal, and against the nature of this country. Its treason, through and through. Even if the difference between treason and fighting for freedom is which side won.<br /><br />I also don't believe that those who fought in gray, even many of those who were generals, were not evil people, even if they had wrong beliefs. It cannot be denied that thousands of soldiers from Texas to Virginia were honorable soldiers who committed many acts of valor. To paraphrase General Grant they fought very well for a cause they believed in, even though that cause was certainly wrong. It was right to treat them honorably after their surrender at Appomattox, as they were, and still are, our countrymen.<br /><br />Unfortunately, too many Southerners took the benevolence of Northerners to be an admission that the Confederacy was right, and that things could go back to the antebellum state of the region. Some, like James Longstreet took the right approach. Others, such as the founders of the Ku Klux Klan, clearly felt they hadn't lost. Some headway was made during Reconstruction, but it all unraveled as the troops moved out, and Jim Crow came into play. For the next eighty or ninety years, the bulk of American historians seemed to buy this view as well, at the expense of the freemen.<br /><br />Thus the disgusting cockroach of a myth known as the Lost Cause became intertwined in the South. The myth that the North didn't win, it just smothered the Confederacy with carpetbags and Springfield rifles was perpetuated, and states in Dixie celebrated memorial days for the Confederacy. You can bet a fifth grade class in Huntsville, Alabama had a different "education" about the Civil War than one in Champaign, Illinois. Movies like <span style="font-style: italic;">Birth of a Nation </span>(that nation isn't the reunified United States) and <span style="font-style: italic;">Gone with the Wind</span> pined for the lost south of plantations and balls, and excoriated those awful "carpetbaggers" and "black Republicans" who ruined their fun.<br /><br />Fortunately, with the Civil Rights movement came a more realistic approach to the history of the Civil War. Of course, with this shift in historical focus came a reaction that clung, and still clings, hard to the myths of the past. Organizations like the Confederate Sons of America have done their damn best to make sure their version of the history remains intact, and far too many Americans (including a disturbing amount of Northerners) fly the rebel battle flag proudly.<br /><br />Let me be clear that I am saying the faults and atrocities of the Union should be ignored. The hell of Camp Douglas should be remembered as much as Andersonville. There is no problem remembering the tenacity of the troops in Pickett's Charge, or remembering how well your great great grandfather fought at Chickamauga. Want to show his rifle or pistol in your den in remembrance of him? Fine.<br /><br />All I am saying is remember the entirety of the story. Remember the sacrifices and struggles of those who fought for the preservation of our union. Remember the valor of the men who made that charge at Marye's Heights, and the heroism of the Iron Brigade at Gettysburg. Remember the struggle of African Americans, both free and slave, who fought and struggled for their freedom from that most undemocratic institution. Most of all, remember the horrors of the Shiloh, Antietam, and the Spotsylvania, and make sure that tragedy doesn't repeat itself.<br /><br />I have no doubt the right side won the Civil War. A strong and united country stretching from Maine to Florida, Massachusetts to California is much better than the alternative. Had the Confederacy won its freedom, whether in September 1862, July 1863, or August 1864, it wouldn't have been the last war between the two countries. What's worse, the French and the British would have been our enemies instead of our friends, and the world may very well have been a much meaner place. The thought that I wouldn't be able to visit the Smoky Mountains, or Mississippians wouldn't be able to go to Yellowstone, without a passport and/or visa is not a good thought.<br /><br />I know the vast majority of Americans also believe in the strength of our union. Sure, a few whackjobs still believe that their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_South">state should secede</a> (not all of them <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vermont_Republic">in the south</a>), but they still remain on the fringe. Of course, the Teabaggers in some states have jumped up the rhetoric, with even some prominent Republicans (see Rick Perry) supporting secession in some hypothetical future. However, I believe that most Americans aren't willing to begin another Civil War. At least they would if they know the story of our first Civil War. Promoting the history of our nation's most traumatic event is a noble and laudable goal. However, limiting it to that one misguided side is neither noble nor laudable. Its beneath any American, whether they live in Richmond, VA, or Washington, DC.Amy Tatehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10731503581721912858noreply@blogger.com0