Quote of the Month
“I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”
Will Rogers
Sense and Nonsense—On Being Divided and Conquered
I am writing this column on the eve of the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver. Democrats have a long history of shooting ourselves in the foot, and limping forward into defeat and humiliation. Prime examples that come to mind include the 2000 Ralph Nader (a Green Party candidate) bid for the Presidency and the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. We just don’t know how to disagree without creating an unbridgeable chasm that swallows momentum and purpose.
Unfortunately, the latest example of our historical tendency to self-destruct is being advanced by die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters. Latest polls show that 10 percent of Clinton supporters will vote for John McCain. Republicans are aggressively trying to take advantage of this political reality. Every Republican pundit on radio/TV talk shows uses a scripted talking point that expresses extreme surprise that Obama did not pick Clinton as a running mate. To underline the controversy, the McCain campaign released the following ad that started running in key states today (Sunday, Aug. 24):
The Script, by a mystery female announcer:
“She won millions of votes. But isn’t on his ticket.
Why?
“For speaking the truth.”
Announcer: “On his plans:"
Senator Clinton’s voice and visual: “You never hear the specifics.”
Announcer: “On the Rezko scandal.”
Senator Clinton’s voice and visual: “We still don’t have a lot of answers about Senator Obama.”
Announcer: “On his attacks”
Senator Clinton’s voice and visual: “Senator Obama’s campaign has become increasingly negative.”
Announcer: “The truth hurt. And Obama didn’t like it.”
The speeches by Senator Clinton on Tuesday night and Bill Clinton on Wednesday night provide the Clintons with an opportunity to unite the party behind the Obama/Biden ticket. Those two speeches will provide the national media with a major story line of the Democratic convention. The media thrives on controversy, so they are simply waiting for any indication that the Clinton speeches are more about Hillary than Obama. On a recent visit to Espanola, New Mexico, Senator Clinton gave a very tepid endorsement of Obama with the following words:
“I know that many of you here today voted for me, you worked for me, and I will never forget what you did for me, ever. But I want you to know if you voted for me, you have far more in common with Sen. Obama than you do with Sen. McCain. I hope you all will join in this historic endeavor. Everyone who supported me, I hope you work as hard for Sen. Obama as you worked for me.”
The Karl Rove-like political bloggers such as “Just Say No Deal” and “Texas Lake Country” claim to speak for millions of voters who have joined the so-called “PUMA” movement. PUMA is an acronym for “Political Unity My A$$.” They are getting national exposure on cable television such as MSNBC’s Hardball hosted by Chris Matthews.
The Democratic Convention could easily “morph” into a perfect storm for the Republicans. The national media (especially the 24-hour cable news networks such as Fox, CNN, and MSNBC) will be very willing participants in promoting any signs of division or controversy just as CNN did with the Howard Dean “scream” video in 2004.
If the Clinton’s promote themselves more than Obama, and if dissenters manage to grab the headlines and the cameras, Republicans will ride those events directly into their convention and beyond.
The election in November will be extremely close. The Democratic convention will likely determine whether the scales tip in Obama’s favor or whether Democrats will once again snatch defeat out the jaws of victory.
Unintended Consequences of the Biofuel Craze
From Fred Bender of Santa Fe: Following are excerpts from an article appearing May 28, 2008, on foreignaffairs.org. The authors are C. Ford Runge, Professor of Applied Economics and Law at the Univ. of Minnesota and Benjamin Senauer, also a Professor of Applied Economics at the Univ. of Minnesota.
“In the year since the publication of our article, ‘How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor’ (May/June, 2007), the average price of corn has increased by some 60 percent, soybeans by 76 percent, wheat by 54 percent, and rice by 104 percent. What at first seemed alarmist has turned out to be an underestimate of the effects of biofuels on both commodity prices and the natural environment.”
“Last year, we predicted that upward pressure on petroleum prices would persist, allowing ethanol producers to pay higher and higher prices for corn. At the time, oil prices were approximately $70 per barrel and rising while corn prices were roughly $3.75 per bushel and rising. But few observers, ourselves included, imagined that within a year oil prices would reach $130 per barrel and corn futures would exceed $6 per bushel.”
“In October 2007, the Nobel Prize winning chemist Paul Crutzen …coauthored an article demonstrating that the heavy application of nitrogen fertilizer on corn (for ethanol) and on European rapeseed (for vegetable-oil biodiesel) would produce such high levels of atmospheric nitrous oxide--which is 296 times more damaging as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide--that it would have a net negative effect on greenhouse gas emissions.”
“The current biofuels craze is neither clean nor green. Instead, it has disrupted food and commodities markets and inflicted heavy penalties on poor consumers.”
“Political protests and riots related to rising food prices have occurred in a number of developing countries including Egypt, Guinea, Haiti, Indonesia, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, the Philippines, Senegal, and Yemen.”
“Nearly a decade ago, we published an article in Foreign Affairs (“A Removable Feast,” May/June 2000) calling attention to global food insecurity and warning that distractions from the role of trade and investment in poor developing countries could erase the positive impact that increased agricultural productivity has had when it comes to reducing global hunger. Biofuels have become just such a distraction, threatening both food security and the natural environment. It is now time for governments to respond, not with more trade distortions and subsidies, but by ending the failed policies that have created an artificial industry that is emptying the stomachs and purses of the world’s poor.”
The Federalist Society—A Quiet Revolution
From the editor: The single most compelling reason to elect a Democrat as President of these United States is to reverse the quiet revolution taking place within the third branch of our government -- the judiciary. Since 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies has grown from student organizations simultaneously organized at Yale, Harvard and University of Chicago Law Schools into one of the most influential conservative organizations shaping the direction and priorities of the federal government.
Following are excerpts from four sources that shed some light on this well-financed right wing political force.
“Launched 23 years ago by a group of conservative students who felt embattled by liberals on the campuses of some of the nation’s most elite law schools, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies has grown into one of the nation’s most influential legal organizations. The group claims more than 35,000 members, an increasing number of whom work in the highest councils of the federal government. Many Justice Department lawyers, White House attorneys, Supreme Court clerks and judges are affiliated with the group. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a close adviser to the organization while he was a University of Chicago law professor.”
“Not only has the Federalist Society become a source of legal talent for Republican administrations, but through its frequent on-campus seminars and forums for practicing lawyers, the group is also credited with popularizing methods of legal analysis now widely advocated by many conservatives and employed by an increasing number of judges. Theories such as originalism, which holds that the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning rather than an evolving meaning that should adapt to contemporary times, is an idea put forward by many Federalist members.”
Source: Washington Post, July 29, 2005, article by Michael A. Fletcher
“Federalist Society members helped to encourage President George W. Bush’s decision to terminate the American Bar Association’s nearly half-century-old monopoly on rating judicial nominees’ qualifications for office. Since the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the American Bar Association has provided the service to presidents of both parties and the nation by vetting the qualifications of those under consideration for lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary.”
Source: Wikipedia article on the Federalist Society
“The Federalist Society’s standard membership fees -- $25 for lawyers and ‘standard members,’ $5 for law students and $10 for faculty -- account for a relatively small share of the organization’s annual income. The growing clout of the Society has been aided by millions of dollars from the John M. Olin, Lynde and Harry Bradley, Sarah (and Richard Mellon) Scaife, and Charles G. Koch foundations. In 1998, all four of these foundations contributed at least $100,000 to the Federalist Society.”
“Since 1985, the Olin, Bradley, Koch and Scaife Foundations have provided over $7 million in grants to the Federalist Society. Between 1993 and 2001, the Federalist Society’s funding soared 182 percent.”
Source: 2003 report by the People for the American Way Foundation entitled ‘The Federalist Society, From Obscurity to Power.’
“To be a good judge takes a special kind of person. A judge needs to be someone who is learned, someone who has common sense, and someone who has a healthy respect for precedent and the law. In addition, a judge must be independent enough to resist temptations of politics or favorable treatment in the media and a judge must be modest enough to appreciate the limited role he plays under the Constitution.”
“These are the qualities you’ll find in my nominees to our 13 federal appeals courts. These appellate courts play a vital role in our legal system. While the Supreme Court may decide fewer than a hundred cases in a year, the federal appellate courts decide more than 30,000. That means for most criminal appeals, for most civil appeals, and on most constitutional issues, the decisions of the appellate courts will be the law of the land….I’m proud of the kind of men and women we now have sitting on these courts -- judges such as Priscilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor, judges like Brett Kavanaugh and Leslie Southwick.”
Source: Remarks of President Bush at the Federalist Society’s 25th Annual Gala, November, 2007.
The Compass Society Newsletter
Maynard Chapman, Editor
Copyright © 2008, The Compass Society
